Small change to (visible game state) trigger rules

[cdr]

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2015/03/23/dtk-policy-changes-for-players/

Basically, for triggers that affect the visible game state (physically moving objects, adding counters, changing life totals, etc) you previously only had to remember to acknowledge the trigger in some way (like verbally), and then hopefully continue on to actually carry out the physical action. Now you actually have to carry out the physical action at the appropriate time, or the trigger is considered missed. Makes a lot of sense.

Put your Empty the Warrens tokens on the battlefield before you do anything else.

[PirateKing]

Anything else being what, specifically?
Could putting the sorcery into my graveyard be enough to cause a "misunderstanding" with my opponent?

[cdr]

Anything else being what, specifically?
Could putting the sorcery into my graveyard be enough to cause a "misunderstanding" with my opponent?

Maybe I shouldn't have used storm for an example since it's a bit more complicated (you have to get the effect of the spell even if you miss the trigger).

Putting the card in the graveyard and then putting the tokens in would be OK under Out-of-Order sequencing so long as you didn't pause between the actions.

Something like playing another spell after Empty without putting the tokens in would move things to Missed Trigger though (plus possibly GPE for not putting the two in for the original).

[iamajellydonut]

So, when Batterskull enters the battlefield and I say "create a token, go ahead" instead of making them wait for me to physically create the token before passing the turn, I have missed my trigger?

[cdr]

So, when Batterskull enters the battlefield and I say "create a token, go ahead" instead of making them wait for me to physically create the token before passing the turn, I have missed my trigger?

Yep, definitely in that case. Completing the physical action is now required.

[iamajellydonut]

That's pretty shitty.

[cdr]

Well, saying "create a token, go ahead" and then forgetting to actually do it because your opponent proceeded to do something during upkeep is a shitty situation to clean up when it's discovered later. Allowing the physical state of the game to be inaccurate is pretty bad.

[QQQ]

This is going to be huge fun during SCG Coverage matches.

Cast Empty the Warrens. Storm trigger? OK. Place ten token OTB. Wait, what? You need to dig them out? Ok, I guess we'll wait. Oh, you don't have enough SCG brand tokens? Ok. we'll wait while you get them since the game can't progress. You found ten? Sweet. Resolve EtW. Place two more tokens OTB. You only found ten? ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............

[iamajellydonut]

Empty the Warrens with storm count at four.
"Ten tokens."
Sift through graveyard for Dread Return.
"Sac three. Target Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite."
Dread Return resolves.

While certainly an uncommon combination of cards, such a course of action is not entirely uncommon by today's standards. However, assuming the opponent lets all that happen, what is to be said of the, so far, non-existent tokens under the new rules? You needed to sacrifice three, which means that at least one of the triggers must have resolved. Does that mean your opponent has de facto chosen to put the trigger(s) on the stack as though it were a missed Dark Confidant trigger? If so, how is this so different from gaining your opponent's consent (which I understand my previous post did not do) regarding a Batterskull token and passing the turn before physically creating a token?

[cdr]

Empty the Warrens with storm count at four.
"Ten tokens."
Sift through graveyard for Dread Return.
"Sac three. Target Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite."
Dread Return resolves.

While certainly an uncommon combination of cards, such a course of action is not entirely uncommon by today's standards. However, assuming the opponent lets all that happen, what is to be said of the, so far, non-existent tokens under the new rules? You needed to sacrifice three, which means that at least one of the triggers must have resolved. Does that mean your opponent has de facto chosen to put the trigger(s) on the stack as though it were a missed Dark Confidant trigger? If so, how is this so different from gaining your opponent's consent (which I understand my previous post did not do) regarding a Batterskull token and passing the turn before physically creating a token?

If your opponent lets you put a germ token in after passing the turn, they're basically letting you get away with rule-breaking play, which happens.

Your ETW scenario could maybe be covered under Out-of-Order Sequencing, in which case putting seven tokens when you pay for Dread Return in would be legal and not a missed trigger. If there's any breaks in there though, rather than everything being done basically at once (because you expect your opponent not to respond to anything), it isn't out-of-order sequencing and you need to put the tokens into play at the proper time.

[Julian23]

I can see that the alternative scenario described by cdr that involves announcing but then forgetting the Germ token also sucks.

For me as a competitive player I still feel bad about that. That means that if I want to play to the best of my ability I would hold an opponent accountable for not putting in the Germ token even though he clearly communicated to me that he was about to get one.

[maharis]

I can see that the alternative scenario described by cdr that involves announcing but then forgetting the Germ token also sucks. For me as a competitive player I still feel bad about that. That means that if I want to play to the best of my ability I would hold an opponent accountable for not putting in the Germ token even though he clearly communicated to me that he was about to get one.

Yeah I wonder what precipitated this change. It seems awful. People are going to pause to scratch their beard before grabbing their tokens and their opponent is going to call a judge. Meanwhile you still don't have to announce Exalted/prowess until it matters? Makes no sense.

[cdr]

Yeah I wonder what precipitated this change. It seems awful. People are going to pause to scratch their beard before grabbing their tokens and their opponent is going to call a judge. Meanwhile you still don't have to announce Exalted/prowess until it matters? Makes no sense.

Policy changes to enforcement - and especially tricky things like triggers - are almost always driven by event experience. When something's causing issues, judges at GPs, PTs, etc notice it.

You can read the 'for judges' version of the above blog post (http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2015/03/23/dtk-policy-changes-for-judges/) for more background on this particular change.

There's always a balance between flow of play and the friction of getting players to strictly follow the rules to avoid broken gamestates. The policy makers decided that a little extra friction was worth it in this case.

I personally think players will adapt, but like Toby says in his post all changes are monitored and modified as necessary.

[Richard Cheese]

So if I'm going to fetch for a green source then GSZ, can I still show my opponent the GSZ and ask if I can shortcut and get everything/shuffle in GSZ all at once?

Also this does not seem like that big of a pain in the ass. If you know you're going to generate a bunch of tokens or flipping into foil Delvers, just keep them close at hand.

[cdr]

So if I'm going to fetch for a green source then GSZ, can I still show my opponent the GSZ and ask if I can shortcut and get everything/shuffle in GSZ all at once?

There's not even a trigger there. That's covered by Out of Order Sequencing.

[TsumiBand]

I expect it was precipitated by the awful propensity of Magic players to shortcut too many things. IMHO there's too many critical game actions that are taken with too much glossing over. Especially when card drawing - show me three separate draws off that bloody Brainstorm, don't just rip three off the top and expect me to just believe it's three cards. Watch any given SCG event and watch people just yank a stack off the top. That's fishy as hell.

I don't expect every little passing of priority to be announced or verbal acknowledgement of every SBE, that's pedantic. But like, doing a thing right when your card says to do a thing, that should just be understood.

Also I agree with people that dislike the fact that Exalted/Prowess/etc triggers etc don't need to be announced 'until they matter'. Especially with so much more emphasis being placed on the battlefield over the last like decade - why overcomplicate matters by allowing people to stay hushed on the p/t of a creature?

[(nameless one)]

I like this rule change. It's really helpful when you pregame before a tournament

[Richard Cheese]

There's not even a trigger there. That's covered by Out of Order Sequencing.

Ok let's say it's a Veteran Explorer trigger then instead of a fetch. Not that it's a big deal to just grab the lands then show the GSZ before shuffling, just curious if it now has to be done that way.

[maharis]

Policy changes to enforcement - and especially tricky things like triggers - are almost always driven by event experience. When something's causing issues, judges at GPs, PTs, etc notice it. You can read the 'for judges' version of the above blog post (http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2015/03/23/dtk-policy-changes-for-judges/) for more background on this particular change. There's always a balance between flow of play and the friction of getting players to strictly follow the rules to avoid broken gamestates. The policy makers decided that a little extra friction was worth it in this case. I personally think players will adapt, but like Toby says in his post all changes are monitored and modified as necessary.

Thank you for that link.

IANAJ but I really think it's better to cover this under GRV or Failure to maintain game state other than missed trigger. I feel like making this a missed trigger opens up all sorts of angle shoots.

How does this affect modern splinter twin?!?

[cdr]

Ok let's say it's a Veteran Explorer trigger then instead of a fetch. Not that it's a big deal to just grab the lands then show the GSZ before shuffling, just curious if it now has to be done that way.

Toby says "with the usual flexibility for out-of-order sequencing", so I believe as long as you put the lands in within the batch of actions legally performed, you're OK.


How does this affect modern splinter twin?!?

Combo decks use loop rules, which let you combine N repeating actions into one. If you loop and make a billion tokens, you have to put something representing those billion tokens into play before you proceed with gameplay.

Edit: I updated my response to the ETW scenario proposed above in light of Out-of-Order Sequencing.

[Star|Scream]

Toby says "with the usual flexibility for out-of-order sequencing", so I believe as long as you put the lands in within the batch of actions legally performed, you're OK.



Combo decks use loop rules, which let you combine N repeating actions into one. If you loop and make a billion tokens, you have to put something representing those billion tokens into play before you proceed with gameplay.



So if a twin player makes a billion pestermites without physically putting them on the battlefield (what's the best way to do this anyway?) and then says "attack with everything" they actually wouldn't win the game?

[Julian23]

You would probably just verbally define a single item (token, sleeve, whatever seems appropriate) as representing 1.000.000 tokens, I assume.

[Megadeus]

Just bring a 5000 count box completely filled and drop it on the table and then throw it at your opponents stupid face

[TsumiBand]

Just bring a 5000 count box completely filled and drop it on the table and then throw it at your opponents stupid face

This seems like the most elegant solution.

[cdr]

So if a twin player makes a billion pestermites without physically putting them on the battlefield (what's the best way to do this anyway?) and then says "attack with everything" they actually wouldn't win the game?

Borderline. Likely to get a pass, though.

You're definitely best off doing what you're supposed to to keep the physical representation of the game accurate, which is the point of the rules change.

[TsumiBand]

Borderline. Likely to get a pass, though.

You're definitely best off doing what you're supposed to to keep the physical representation of the game accurate, which is the point of the rules change.

Ehhh I think you're walking into a "minimum number of Pestermites" troll net, if it's codified in any way people will just be sure to make that many + 1 to ensure they never need to represent Pestermite copies.

Then again maybe this should be taken as an attempt to also reign in the number of loops people entertain; we don't need to run everything up to 2^45 loops and generate 4 kafrillion mana to RSZ the opponent for amounts that are orders upon orders of magnitude their life total, right? Makes players be like "I'll demonstrate the combo once; see how I can make as many Pestermites as I want, for as long as I want? I'll make... 11."

[cdr]

Ehhh I think you're walking into a "minimum number of Pestermites" troll net, if it's codified in any way people will just be sure to make that many + 1 to ensure they never need to represent Pestermite copies.

Then again maybe this should be taken as an attempt to also reign in the number of loops people entertain; we don't need to run everything up to 2^45 loops and generate 4 kafrillion mana to RSZ the opponent for amounts that are orders upon orders of magnitude their life total, right? Makes players be like "I'll demonstrate the combo once; see how I can make as many Pestermites as I want, for as long as I want? I'll make... 11."

You seem to be misunderstanding; how many tokens you make is irrelevant, how far you can go without properly representing them is the question. The rule basically requires you to do so before doing anything that requires the stack to be empty (moving to a new step/phase, playing a sorcery/land), but Out-of-Order Sequencing a block of actions is still OK as long as the physical representation is taken care of within the sequence.

Representing a billion tokens as a piece of paper with "1 billion" written on it is fine.

[Risky]

I'm seeing some misinterpretation here about the new Missed Trigger update, so I'd like to offer some clarification. Big picture, things should be business as usual for most of you. If you play a Batterskull, say "germ token, go," and reach for your deck box, that's fine. Even if you play it, say "go," and reach for your deck box to grab a token, that's still easily interpreted as an Out-of-Order Sequence.

Remember, the philosophy behind the entire Missed Trigger policy is not "what technicalities can I catch my opponent on to make him miss this trigger?" It is more like "what evidence is there that this trigger was missed?" In the above examples, "reaching for the deck box" makes it pretty clear that the trigger was not missed, and these policies are not meant to punish people for taking shortcuts or doing things in a technically incorrect order.

I'll use a real word example that I saw. This was just a few weeks before the update. A player controlled an Eidolon of Blossoms and Doomwake Giant. He cast Genesis Hydra and "cascaded" into a second Eidolon of Blossoms. He pointed to each constellation creature and said "trigger" for each one, then proceeded to shuffle for his Genesis Hydra. After shuffling, he evaluated the board and made an attack. At that point, I intervened. According to the policy at the time, he had correctly indicated the triggers at the appropriate time, but hadn't carried out the actions. After confirming with the Head Judge (Toby Elliott, L5 and head of IPG), I assessed a GRV rather than a Missed Trigger and made him draw 2 cards.

Now, just a few weeks later, this would be classified as a Missed Trigger. Although there was an acknowledgement of the trigger, the action (draw 2 cards) wasn't carried out.

[iamajellydonut]

I like that explanation a lot.

[cdr]

I like that explanation a lot.

Riki Hayashi tends to get that reaction.

[Finn]

The longer I wait between tournaments, the more I am sure that some whippersnapper is going to kick my butt on a flurry of technicalities that I completely deserve due to the bad habits of casual slowly but completely replacing tournament play frost. I sometimes don't do anything whatsoever to represent the token. I just attack and block with an equipment card.

[Phoenix Ignition]

So if a twin player makes a billion pestermites without physically putting them on the battlefield (what's the best way to do this anyway?) and then says "attack with everything" they actually wouldn't win the game?

Yu Gi Oh players figured this one out already.

http://i.imgur.com/UPozttg.gif

[Julian23]

Just finished a round of Modern and here's why I hate this:

My opponent never put an actual Angel into play for Geist of Sant Traf. I could have held him responsible for his shortcoming in several crucial situations, but didn't because it I couldn't get myself to fight over this. I really hate how I played worse than I could have because I didn't fight for every edge.

[Star|Scream]

Just finished a round of Modern and here's why I hate this:

My opponent never put an actual Angel into play for Geist of Sant Traf. I could have held him responsible for his shortcoming in several crucial situations, but didn't because it I couldn't get myself to fight over this. I really hate how I played worse than I could have because I didn't fight for every edge.

I really don't think that was that bad. If your opponent said "Attack with geist, take 6" or "Attack with geist, trigger" and doesn't actually put the angel into play, you can't really argue that he missed the trigger. I guess if your opponent says "attack with geist" and you get all the way to damage and he says "oh take 4 for angel" then you have a case, but you already had a case for this before this rule change.

[TsumiBand]

I really don't think that was that bad. If your opponent said "Attack with geist, take 6" or "Attack with geist, trigger" and doesn't actually put the angel into play, you can't really argue that he missed the trigger. I guess if your opponent says "attack with geist" and you get all the way to damage and he says "oh take 4 for angel" then you have a case, but you already had a case for this before this rule change.

I dunno, it sounds like it's exactly like he can argue for the former case. If you're saying "Attack with Geist, take 6?", that's a verbal shortcut, saying, "I suggest we move to the end of combat step after damage has been dealt, do you agree?" but if the opponent doesn't put the Angel on the battlefield, then he's pretty clearly just letting it not enter the battlefield while also trying to scoot the game state forward.

Even if I've misunderstood the intent of this ruling - to me this example is, if nothing else, a good example of a bad shortcut. It's seriously just one token; put the shit on the battlefield, mang. You're doing it all day, putting cards on the battlefield that is. Just put the thing out there, you're the one who decided to play with Geist of St. Traft, follow through. Like are we gaining anything from not representing the token? The billion Goblins I can appreciate, but we're talking about one flipping 4/4. At the very least, do it to prevent a shitty Jedi mind trick from ever happening to you, as the Geist player. CYA is great for both players.

Plus I mean - here's where the shitty unscrupulous players come in and allow for the Geist to swing for 6 damage and never putting a token in, but if the opponent casts, I dunno, Rakdos Charm or whatever, and they only mark down 1 life and no one notices until maybe some turns later because there's only one creature card in play on their side when it resolves - so what, were they cheating? Did they forget? Do we have to do the character examination on the opponent to make sure that they aren't just one of those Two Explores types, or do we just tell people to quit being bloody lazy and bring a single copy of a 4/4 Angel token with them when they play a deck with Geist of Saint Traft? I think the choice is pretty clear, but Magic players like to act a lot smarter than they actually are and they assume everyone's just maintaining the whole of the game state in their head 100% of the time, and it's just not so.

[PirateKing]

They way it was explained further to me was that this change only affects when triggers are actually missed; they don't change any opportunities to 'gotcha' your opponent. Two scenarios:

Player controls Young Pyromancer and casts Brainstorm at the end of their opponent's turn. Player resolves Brainstorm, then untaps and draws their card for turn.
Player controls Young Pyromancer and casts Brainstorm at the end of their opponent's turn. Player points to the Young Pyromancer and says "trigger", resolves Brainstorm, then untaps and draws their card for turn.

Both cases the player missed the Young Pyromancer trigger. Even if they showed awareness, because they never did the thing, it was missed. So before, just saying "trigger" allowed for sloppy take-backsies because you didn't 'miss it', you said trigger two turns ago, so now something-something now I get my thing. Now, if you miss it, you miss it, regardless of what words come out of your mouth. All the corner cases and proposed shortcuts don't represent examples of missed triggers.

[iamajellydonut]

I feel like...

(after your opponent announced his attack and indicated an awareness of the trigger but failed to put a representative marker likely under the assumption that there would be no effects between attacking and damage)

... that if you had asked to move to declare blockers, regardless of whether you actually had effects or not, and your opponent still failed to put a token into play, that it would then fairly be considered a missed trigger.

[lyracian]

My opponent never put an actual Angel into play for Geist of Sant Traf. I could have held him responsible for his shortcoming in several crucial situations, but didn't because it I couldn't get myself to fight over this. I really hate how I played worse than I could have because I didn't fight for every edge.
Except that is one of the items listed on the judge page as fine! :cry:

April 10, 2015 at 12:23 pm telliott says: Attack for 6 is fine.

[TsumiBand]

Well that's... inconsistent and terrible, but w/e

[Star|Scream]

Well that's... inconsistent and terrible, but w/e

It's not, because he is not forgetting the trigger. This is a special case though, because unlike an opponent forgetting a germ token and then passing the turn, the angel is immediately attacking. There is no ambiguity about whether or not it is happening. In this instance you're simply just trying to rules-lawyer your opponent.

[cdr]

It's not, because he is not forgetting the trigger. This is a special case though, because unlike an opponent forgetting a germ token and then passing the turn, the angel is immediately attacking. There is no ambiguity about whether or not it is happening. In this instance you're simply just trying to rules-lawyer your opponent.

That's not what the infraction says, though.

The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.

Out-of-order sequencing lets you take a batch of legal actions all at once as long as you end up with a legal and understood game state, but I personally don't see how never putting an token into play while attacking is defensible.

[Phelix]

List of trigger examples from matches at MKM Rome.

1: My opponent has chalice of the void (1) in play. I call over the judge to hang out for 30 seconds. I play preordain. My opponent says "ok". I look at the top two cards, put one at the bottom, one on top and I say "draw the one card" and my opponent then says - wait, chalice of the void!?

The judge says he missed the trigger. I draw the card.

2: same setup, same player, two turns later:
Plays mystikal tutor. I point to his chalice of the void and say: "It triggers, countering your tutor". He tries to take the play back, but i must tell him that countered spells go to the graveyard.

3: Another match. My opponent casts snapcaster mage. I think, say "ok". He puts it into play, then fetches, taps the fetched land for mana and says "play repeal from my graveyard" I say: you missed the trigger. A judge confirms this. The ruling is appealed on the basis that he has no other spells in the graveyard. The head judge confirms him missing the trigger.

4: (not triggers, but still) I have Dack Fayden in play. My opponent attacks. I think for a while and say: "No blockers, take two?" He then says: "No attack dack fayden". I call the judge. The ruling is that if nothing is announced, its assumed that the player is attacked.



Am I a horrible person? A rules lawyer?

This was comepetitive level rules enforcement and I enjoy the competitive environment. I expect my opponents to call a judge if i do anything illegal, as i will also call the judge on myself when i do so. (this actually happened twice, once i drew a starting 8, and once i looked at the second to top card with a delver trigger, not seeing the top card, as they were sticking together)


Making mistakes should be costly. Playing perfectly should be rewarded. This is also a game of concentration. That is a skill.

[Julian23]

Except that is one of the items listed on the judge page as fine! :cry:

April 10, 2015 at 12:23 pm telliott says: Attack for 6 is fine.

I don't know what that crying smiley is supposed to mean. I assume it's meant to mock me for not understanding or having read what you quote. I find that to be an incredibly childish, inmature and offensive behavior, it really bothers me...because I think it's actually you who did not understand what was talked about, which would make your whole ":cry:" totally backfire at your matureness and credibility. I just had to get that one out of my system because it's one of the most annoying things during discussions.

To explain what I think is wrong about your reasoning:
We are talking about when and when not required to physically represent something. You quote Tobi's statement about "attack for 6" being enough. That means "attack for 6" is good enough to replace the physical act of putting an Angel into play. However, this is irrelevant to the situation. The situation in question is an opponent tapping Geist, allowing blockers, then upon combat damage suddenly implying that the Angel had been put into play. I think I should have fought that but instead let him have his Angel since deep down inside I still feel that is how Magic should actually be played. Which makes it hard, since playing Magic to the best of my/your/anyone's ability means definitely fighting over that.

What Star|Scream said isn't really relevant or related to how the rules work as your cdr pointed out.

Also, this entire discussion it about what people call "Rules-Lawyering" in the first place. Or it is not. That is because nobody knows where exactly the integrity of the game ends and where rules-lawyering starts. I think that something such as "rules-lawyering" is just as much part of playing the game as is playing a land, casting a creature or arriving to your table in time. The best protection against "rule-lawyering" is to play the game correctly and according to the rules, then you will never be screwed over, corner-case scenarios where your opponent starts lying to a judge aside. But at that point we are talking about Cheating, which we only have limited protection against anyways.

[Star|Scream]

That's not what the infraction says, though.

The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.

Out-of-order sequencing lets you take a batch of legal actions all at once as long as you end up with a legal and understood game state, but I personally don't see how never putting an token into play while attacking is defensible.


So you're saying that even though the attacking player clearly verbally demonstrates the trigger in the attack step (Attack for 6), his opponent is allowed to wait until damage before calling a judge claiming that the attacker missed the angel trigger?

I don't understand how it can be legal for you to wait to gotcha your opponent like that.

Julian23:

I am only talking about THIS specific example, where the attacking player verbally indicates at the beginning of combat that he is resolving the trigger. In your example, your opponent did appear to miss the trigger.

[TsumiBand]

Thing is, there are 10k+ game pieces in Magic, and because they don't all work in the same way, the game state has to be maintained as accurately as possible. The rules can't make provisions for relative strength of the cards involved.

I was going to construct a scenario involving effects between the first step in combat and the last, but honestly that's pointless - just consider that the board state could just become convoluted when the focus is taken off of the battlefield and placed on the stack. Like a counter-war over a removal spell happens or something, and it ends with both players derping and forgetting that there's an Angel token in play. It doesn't really matter what was cast or why, that's not the point - the point is, failing to make it a habit to produce an Angel token can lead to situations where the actual number of creatures is unclear, or the total power and toughness of creatures in play is unclear, or even something stupid like a 4-point discrepancy between players in regard to what actual life totals are because the Geist player won't just put a flipping Angel on the battlefield.

I mean if I were a judge I'd want to be able to come to a table and just look at the board and at least assume that 100% of the information is in play. The stack and life totals and other intangibles can be sussed out; the battlefield is the only zone in the game that both players can actively see which speaks for itself. Why would you cloud that?

[apple713]

The longer I wait between tournaments, the more I am sure that some whippersnapper is going to kick my butt on a flurry of technicalities that I completely deserve due to the bad habits of casual slowly but completely replacing tournament play frost. I sometimes don't do anything whatsoever to represent the token. I just attack and block with an equipment card.

I am in the same boat as you Finn


List of trigger examples from matches at MKM Rome.

1: My opponent has chalice of the void (1) in play. I call over the judge to hang out for 30 seconds. I play preordain. My opponent says "ok". I look at the top two cards, put one at the bottom, one on top and I say "draw the one card" and my opponent then says - wait, chalice of the void!?

The judge says he missed the trigger. I draw the card.

2: same setup, same player, two turns later:
Plays mystikal tutor. I point to his chalice of the void and say: "It triggers, countering your tutor". He tries to take the play back, but i must tell him that countered spells go to the graveyard.

3: Another match. My opponent casts snapcaster mage. I think, say "ok". He puts it into play, then fetches, taps the fetched land for mana and says "play repeal from my graveyard" I say: you missed the trigger. A judge confirms this. The ruling is appealed on the basis that he has no other spells in the graveyard. The head judge confirms him missing the trigger.

4: (not triggers, but still) I have Dack Fayden in play. My opponent attacks. I think for a while and say: "No blockers, take two?" He then says: "No attack dack fayden". I call the judge. The ruling is that if nothing is announced, its assumed that the player is attacked.



Am I a horrible person? A rules lawyer?

This was comepetitive level rules enforcement and I enjoy the competitive environment. I expect my opponents to call a judge if i do anything illegal, as i will also call the judge on myself when i do so. (this actually happened twice, once i drew a starting 8, and once i looked at the second to top card with a delver trigger, not seeing the top card, as they were sticking together)


Making mistakes should be costly. Playing perfectly should be rewarded. This is also a game of concentration. That is a skill.

I tend to think of things as if they were happening on magic online where the rules are continuously enforced. If you get away with something in real life that would never have happened online, you are probably abusing the rules.

1. Prime example. You intended to deceive this player as suggested by you calling to judge over to witness your cunning manipulation of the rules. You knew that the spell would be countered and put into the graveyard unless "my opponent lets me break the rules." You opted to test the boundaries and this though process should not be rewarded. Although it is permissible in paper magic, it shouldnt be. In online magic the trigger would have happened and he would have countered the spell like the card was intended to be played. It is especially sneaky and deceptive because you clearly understand the rules and should have never been able to get away with this. Chalice of the void is not a "conditional" counterspell.

Furthermore, in my opinion, when the opponent acknowledged "ok" he was probably thinking "sure, it'll get countered i have no responses"
2. opponent at fault
3. you are nitpicking. you clearly understand the rules, and it is implied that the only possible target is the repeal. Looking back to the magic online example, It would have triggered and inevitably repeal would have been chosen.
4. opponent at fault



Back to the topic.

Although this rule doesn't seem terrible, over time I have seen where the technicalities of rules have disrupted the gameplay. Unfortunately there is not an alternative solution when prizes are at stake. Kids will lie, cheat, and steal for next to nothing now days.

[TsumiBand]

So you're saying that even though the attacking player clearly verbally demonstrates the trigger in the attack step (Attack for 6), his opponent is allowed to wait until damage before calling a judge claiming that the attacker missed the angel trigger?

I don't understand how it can be legal for you to wait to gotcha your opponent like that.

See that's not a gotcha in my mind though. What the real gotcha is, is expecting players to track the game state when aspects of it that can absolutely be easily physically represented are not actually being manifested. Just remove that expectation from players, there's enough going on most of the time that it's unnecessary to burden either player with that expectation. If we're sticking to the Geist example, it is literally just one token. I don't find that to be a defensible time to shortcut the actual act of putting a thing on the battlefield. We're not talking about putting 43,618,399 Pestermite tokens into play here - and even if we were, they can typically be represented with a single object as well. Just come on.

[Star|Scream]

See that's not a gotcha in my mind though. What the real gotcha is, is expecting players to track the game state when aspects of it that can absolutely be easily physically represented are not actually being manifested. Just remove that expectation from players, there's enough going on most of the time that it's unnecessary to burden either player with that expectation. If we're sticking to the Geist example, it is literally just one token. I don't find that to be a defensible time to shortcut the actual act of putting a thing on the battlefield. We're not talking about putting 43,618,399 Pestermite tokens into play here - and even if we were, they can typically be represented with a single object as well. Just come on.

I apologize that I am not adequately able to describe my point. In my head it makes sense, I swear! If I attack with my geist and I verbally indicate that an angel is attacking (attacking for 6) , at what point can my opponent honestly say I forgot my trigger? What if my opponent notates that he took 6 life, and then at the end step says "wait, you didn't put down the token?"

What if I say "attacking for 6," pause, and then he immediately says "well there's no token so.. gotcha!"

These are the situations that I think you cannot say there was a missed trigger.

[cdr]

So you're saying that even though the attacking player clearly verbally demonstrates the trigger in the attack step (Attack for 6), his opponent is allowed to wait until damage before calling a judge claiming that the attacker missed the angel trigger?

Yes, the entire rule change is that verbally acknowledging a trigger that requires physical representation is no longer sufficient. You can get away with doing things out of order a little with the out-of-order sequencing rule, but players need to adjust and properly maintain the physical state of the game.

Just put your tokens/counters out before proceeding with the game and then judges won't have to decide when you've crossed the line.

[Star|Scream]

Yes, the entire rule change is that verbally acknowledging a trigger that requires physical representation is no longer sufficient. You can get away with doing things out of order a little with the out-of-order sequencing rule, but players need to adjust and properly maintain the physical state of the game.

Just put your tokens/counters out before proceeding with the game and then judges won't have to decide when you've crossed the line.


I get what you're saying, but then on the judge blog:

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2015/03/23/dtk-policy-changes-for-judges/

Hi Toby!

How does the new trigger policy affect Geist of Saint Traft? Do you always have to put a token onto the battlefield now or are there still situations where just saying “attack for 6″ is fine?
telliott says:

April 10, 2015 at 12:23 pm

Attack for 6 is fine.

[cdr]

A five word response doesn't convey much information. If you don't expect your opponent to interact at all during combat, you could maybe squint and see "attack for 6" as out-of-order sequencing. Riki's post above seems to indicate he has a very expansive interpretation of out-of-order sequencing, and I don't entirely agree. But Toby/Riki are judge leadership and I'm not a judge, so take that for whatever it's worth.

[Emo]

I honestly think with the Geist example putting the token into play during combat is a must and failing to do so is a missed trigger. The reason I say this is because I find that this sitaution of not putting tokens into play at the appropriate time must apply in all cases to ensure proper gameplay. I have had opponents who play young pyromancer, cast a bunch of instant spells, point at the pyromancer for each trigger and then proceed to put all the tokens into play later during the combat step and then swing for the fences, even though 1 or 2 tokens maybe summoning sick. Although my opponent pointed to the pyromancer acknowledging the trigger, shortcutting with when to put in tokens into play can lead to backtracking to when spells were played and how they were sequenced. I know the Geist example is much simpler, but I think it is the same logic that allows one player to avoid putting the angel token into play, which also allows another player to take their time to put in pyromancer tokens and chalk it up to "short cutting".

[TsumiBand]

You will almost certainly never be rules-lawyered for actually putting the Angel token into play.

No I am not talking about anticipating Stifles or Time Stops or whatever - it is about as useful to think of corner-cases for as it is against, and I'm not going to do that rabbit-hole crapulence. Assuming all things are equal, you would never be faulted by a judge for actually putting the Angel token into play.

[ESG]

A five word response doesn't convey much information. If you don't expect your opponent to interact at all during combat, you could maybe squint and see "attack for 6" as out-of-order sequencing. Riki's post above seems to indicate he has a very expansive interpretation of out-of-order sequencing, and I don't entirely agree. But Toby/Riki are judge leadership and I'm not a judge, so take that for whatever it's worth.

You should be a judge. I would think your expansive rules knowledge would qualify you in a heartbeat.

[apple713]

You should be a judge. I would think your expansive rules knowledge would qualify you in a heartbeat.

He was, and probably still is. His expansive knowledge is the reason he moderates "Card Interactions and Rulings."

[cdr]

I was a judge for a long time, but I haven't judged for two or three years and my status is expired. Lack of time and the fact that as I get older working for a multimillion dollar corporation for sub-minimum wage isn't as attractive.

[Phelix]

I am in the same boat as you Finn



I tend to think of things as if they were happening on magic online where the rules are continuously enforced. If you get away with something in real life that would never have happened online, you are probably abusing the rules.

1. Prime example. You intended to deceive this player as suggested by you calling to judge over to witness your cunning manipulation of the rules. You knew that the spell would be countered and put into the graveyard unless "my opponent lets me break the rules." You opted to test the boundaries and this though process should not be rewarded. Although it is permissible in paper magic, it shouldnt be. In online magic the trigger would have happened and he would have countered the spell like the card was intended to be played. It is especially sneaky and deceptive because you clearly understand the rules and should have never been able to get away with this. Chalice of the void is not a "conditional" counterspell.

Furthermore, in my opinion, when the opponent acknowledged "ok" he was probably thinking "sure, it'll get countered i have no responses"


3. you are nitpicking. you clearly understand the rules, and it is implied that the only possible target is the repeal. Looking back to the magic online example, It would have triggered and inevitably repeal would have been chosen.


.

So what you are saying is that magic online is real magic, paper isnt? In my opinion, magic online is set to resemble paper as best it can. Not the other way around.

1. "Chalice is not a conditional counterspell" - well in fact it is. It only works when the controller announces the trigger. Just like w. young pyromancer.

3. Im not nitpicking. I clearly noticed the opponent missing his trigger. He acknowledged himself that he forgot to call it. This wasnt a kitchen table or friday night event. This was competitive rules enforcement level play. I feel very comfortable that if these plays should not be legal for me to make, the rules would reflect that.

[apple713]

So what you are saying is that magic online is real magic, paper isnt? In my opinion, magic online is set to resemble paper as best it can. Not the other way around.

1. "Chalice is not a conditional counterspell" - well in fact it is. It only works when the controller announces the trigger. Just like w. young pyromancer.

3. Im not nitpicking. I clearly noticed the opponent missing his trigger. He acknowledged himself that he forgot to call it. This wasnt a kitchen table or friday night event. This was competitive rules enforcement level play. I feel very comfortable that if these plays should not be legal for me to make, the rules would reflect that.

Chalice of the void is not a conditional trigger. <-- is a fact you cannot argue. The text indicates that it always happens. However, the rules of paper magic may give it a conditional effect through "missing triggers" which is not an intended use of the card when it was created. The point i'm trying to make is that Online Magic FORCES you to play correctly, and not miss triggers or play out of order, i.e., play the game the way it was intended. Online magic only knows how to follow what the cards indicate, which is what plays SHOULD be doing but clearly don't because we are not perfect.

Chalice of the void's effect is not a conditional counterspell. if that was the case it would be printed to say

Chalice of the Void enters the battlefield with X charge counters on it.
Whenever a player casts a spell with converted mana cost equal to the number of charge counters on Chalice of the Void, Chalice of the Void's controller MAY counter that spell.

that additional text was INTENTIONALLY left off of the card because it would allow the owner to choose not to counter his own spells. However, your twisted situation and rules manipulation give chalice of the void the effect of having that text which is WRONG.

This use of rules clearly isn't what the creators of magic intended when making the game. If you want to classify skill as based on knowledge and application of the rules, you should stop playing magic and go to law school. You'll make a hell of a lot more money and you'll apply "rules" every day.

Skill is knowing when to save that counterspell for the more appropriate threat, or stifling a fetch land when you know the opponent really needs that land because the only run 15 lands. It's deciding whether to kill a death right shaman vs a tarmogoyf because over a few turns deathright shaman's damage can't be prevented and will ultimately kill you. <-- those are skills based decisions that the game of magic should be decided on.

[cdr]

.

OK, that's enough of that. It's off topic, and quite frankly you're also wrong - trigger policy has evolved over nearly 20 years to where it is today, and making players responsible for remembering their own triggers has been the most reasonable way of handling the fact that people forget stuff in real life. You can go back and find discussion of why making opponents responsible for other people's triggers is undesirable.

[cdr]

By the way, judgecast covers the history (or the last 5 years anyway) of trigger policy this week, if you're interested.

http://judgecast.com/?p=818

[ubernostrum]

For sake of completeness, here is my long-winded explanation of why trigger policy is what it is now (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?29205-Flusterstorm-Missed-trigger&p=869479&highlight=#post869479). Some overlap with the judgecast episode, but that's because, like some of the folks on there, I'm an old fart who remembers random stuff. And I'm not just saying that because I want another guest appearance on the cast...

[Bed Decks Palyer]

you will never be screwed over, corner-case scenarios where your opponent starts lying to a judge aside. But at that point we are talking about Cheating, which we only have limited protection against anyways.

You may always play with a GoPro helmet camera. Speak about next-leveling your usual Two Explore Guy.

While I think that most of the changes that DCI/WotC ake, are for the better of the game - ok, except for PWs and PWPs, that's some seriously wrong crap -, I'm under impression that this game ain't for me anymore. Unless I got rid of my stuff pretty soon, I'd be celebrating my twentieth magical anniversary next year, but the nowadays experiences (gameplay, artistic and design), community and even the very basics of (organized) game are far from what thrilled me back when a friend of mine learned me to tap Craw Wurms.
Otoh, I realize that wanting something that easy as to put a single token into play isn't exactly daunting task, and as Tsumi wrote, if you're the GoST player, than bring the token and bring it out of the box, it really has a reason.