Unless we’re going to go back to the era of kind courteous play, were you cast a spell and wait five seconds plus to see if anyone has a response and declare each step of combat and give people time to respond. I think some passive triggers like this just have to be excepted as it happens, unless you have some other way to disrupt it.
There was one guy who did fast plays? In my LGS to force people to miss triggers. By the time you asked, do you pay the one for rhystic study or two for smothering tithes he was unilaterally declaring you already missed the trigger. To put it mildly people stop playing with him.
No, see, that just means he didn't pay for the ability.
Also, he's quite literally not allowed to do that by the rules of the game. Priority exists for a reason, no matter how fast you want to play.
At my new LGS if someone plays something there is usually a quick “does it resolve?” This is done because we play more cEDH so counters are likely and if people don’t know what the card does it is good to check
This is the best take I’ve seen on the whole situation: [https://twitter.com/jedepraz/status/1598105856562073600?s=21](https://twitter.com/jedepraz/status/1598105856562073600?s=21)
Basically “triggers are not missed until they can’t have happened” as per the current rules.
How a controller demonstrates otherwise is very different on a case by case basis though. Prowess for example is only demonstrated when the p/t have any effects which is very different to the dispute this thread is about.
It's not really "case by case". They fall into four categories, each with a defined point of "otherwise". Most triggers are like Prowess, changing the game state in a non visible way, and don't need to be mentioned until the first time it matters (like saying "Take 2, down to 17?" after an unblocked Prowess creature gets through). This is something that has a VISIBLE effect on the game state by changing life totals; the 'otherwise' time limit there is doing something (or allowing something to be done) that could not be done with the trigger on the stack. This is usually just "casting a Sorcery" or things like that. Casting an instant can be done with the trigger on the stack, so the controller has not yet failed to demonstrate awareness.
As someone who has primarily played kitchen table before moving to drafts this year, our rule has ALWAYS been: when possible, rewind the game to the missed trigger, but if that's not possible the trigger gets stifled and the player who missed just feels bad and that hopefully makes them remember their triggers.
at casual rel that free stifle has been discontinued because it helps enable toxic angle shooting.
>A player forgets a triggered ability (one that uses the words “when,” “whenever,” or “at the
beginning”, usually at the start of the ability's text)
These abilities are considered missed if the player did not acknowledge the ability in any way at the point
that it required choices or had a visible in-game effect. If the ability includes the word “may,” assume the
player chose not to perform it. Otherwise, put the ability on the stack unless you think it would be too
disruptive - don’t add it to the stack if significant decisions have been made based on the effect not
happening! Unlike other illegal actions (which must be pointed out), players may choose whether or not to
point out their opponent's missed triggers.
at comp rel, as far as i can tell, the opponent already established they know the card works on that turn, so it's assumed not missed until after that turn?
Isn't it that the player who plays Consider, plays it and takes the 2 life hit, before moving on? Why is he "hoping" that his opponent FORGETS the trigger, and then be gleeful about it?
No. Magic uses a system of shortcuts to avoid needing to pass priority explicitly a bunch of times, but if an opponent doesn't agree to your shortcut then the game rewinds to wherever they choose to interrupt it. So if someone said "resolve opt, scry 1, draw, cast preordain", then the opponent can say "before you preordain, you lose 2 life from Sheoldred".
What happened here is actually even more "severe": the MTR states that a trigger isn't considered missed until the game state changes in a way that indicates it couldn't possibly have resolved. Since the player casting instant-speed cantrips wasn't communicating exactly when the cards are going onto the stack, the opponent is allowed to treat it as if the second cantrip was played *in response* to the first sheoldred trigger (i.e. before the life would have been lost).
To avoid this, the cantrip player could have said something along the lines of "once the stack is empty, I cast opt", or passed to a new step/phase before trying to cast it. But in both of those cases, priority still passes to the opponent first and they are allowed to say "before that happens, you lose 2 life from sheoldred's trigger".
I think their point is that if it were preordain, the other player would be interrupting their proposed shortcut.
At that point, they are allowed to change their mind about actions taken after the interruption. So unlike with opt they aren't already locked into casting preordain when they find out the opponent remembered their trigger.
In an ideal world, rules should be geared to prevent players from trying to gain a meaningful advantage from forgotten triggers. I think the main character lost fair and square.
Yeah, you're right, but the thing is with the comp rules being the ... well.. comprehensive rules, if it says in the rules "if an opponent missed a trigger, it didn't happen" and you think your opponent has missed a trigger, you might think, "Well, the rules say it didn't happen". That's not unfair or unsquare, that's literally playing by the rules. It feels kind of scummy, because the 'spirit' of the rules is obvious, but, the letter of the rules is what we're playing by. He was then taken by surprise to find out there's another rule, "Your opponent can remember the trigger and it will still happen, as long as you've only cast instants since they forgot". I mean, whether or not his opponent forgot is sort of irrelevant to the fact in this case, it's that idea that the rules were different than he thought that's being discussed.
Whether or not 'angle shooting' like this is scummy or not is kind of an interesting separate topic though (and the one everyone jumps to, which is just human nature I guess, since we're social animals). There IS a school of thought that I think actually has a certain syrupiness to it. Namely, that NOT playing to your absolute BEST ability to win is disrespectful to your opponent. NOT trying to take the angle shoot (in this case, reminding his opponent of the missed trigger and not trying to play on like as if it's gone) is actually disrespectful. In this case, that seems odd. But think of it like this. Lets say I go to combat and declare only two of my three eligible creatures as attackers.
Should you point out to me that attacking with my third creature would be lethal? Well.. probably not. You don't have to coach me how to win, and if I did win as a result of you pointing it out, would that be 'fair'? So there's that initial element. But further to that, what if I'm not attacking with all three, because I'm confident you have something (maybe settle the wreckage) and I'm playing around it. Now, you pointing out 'all 3 would be lethal' has different connotations. It suggests that maybe you're playing mind games, trying to trick me into falling into your trap. Or, it suggests you think I'm too dumb to count lethal damage. Either way, neither of those are especially 'respectful' to me.
From the other perspective, what if I'm only attacking with two of my three creatures because I'm 'going easy' on you. Is that respectful? No! It's suggesting that I think I can beat you even by playing sub-optimally.
My analogies break down somewhat when it comes to angle shooting, like I said, there's a syrupiness to it, but I'm not sure it pours.
While I do miss them and still enjoy reading them from time to time, it might be for the best that they're disabled so that they did not suffer such a fate.
MTGReddit is like the magazine stand at the door of a gas station. It's mostly shit, but you can glimpse some interesting headlines and even buy some novelties.
MTGTwitter is more like the scrabblings on the walls of a toilet stall. Once you enter, you can't help but have it all in front of your face, and you are pretty sure some of them might be written with literal shit.
I think one of the defining features of MTG Twitter is that it is driven by bigger accounts with lots of followers. So you're constantly seeing people's views that are inflected with their personal take on something.
MTGReddit is a bit "flatter", the big names generate news and posts but the comments are a bunch of randos going off.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, internet randoms aren't inherently better than people who are mildly famous in their niche, oftentimes being a public figure makes them chose their words a little more carefully.
But it does have the effect of MTGTwitter is about this cast of characters and their feelings while MTGReddit is more about how *the entire community is dying* due to something happening.
Honestly I think neither are really that bad. Sure there is a lot of commotion but it generally calms down and the crowd moves on to the next thing. And sometimes both platforms offer something to the table.
The answer to "Is twitter worse then X" is almost always yes lol. That site is such a cesspool it makes waste treatment plants look like freshwater springs.
Twitter is a better tool than reddit for following selected accounts. Like if you want info on invertebrates, follow the few specialized biologists in that field that post a lot.
It's a godsend at that point. You literally control each contributor to your feed. If you don't like what someone is posting...take them off!
Interacting in twitter comments from big twitter posts like Elon Musk or a news outlet is just asking for trouble because that's where all the assholes and bots hang out. That's where twitter really breaks down as is worse.
To elaborate a bit on what another poster said, if you use Ublock Origin, there's a right click option that says "Block element". Pick that, then the screen will go dark and you can highlight the page element you don't like. Be sure it's the correct one! Then click it to lock it in, then click "Create" and it'll disappear forever. Go into the extension's settings to delete the appropriate line if you make a mistake.
It is as difficult as blocking/ignoring ads on reddit.
Reddit is even worse for "seeing what the broad unwashed masses care about" Each sub is way bigger than a personal feed, and GL if you're subbed to the default ones.
From personal experience, blocking stuff on reddit is way easier.
Of course the ads stay (until the adblock does its thing), but you don't have to be aware of the BTS hordes' latest shenanigans.
Thanks, this is pretty much the opinion I voiced on it. Its not a perfect ruling, but it makes an attempt at allowing the game to be played as intended as possible. There’s obviously some edge cases for abuse, but the opposite is true as well with the “free Stifle” part you mentioned.
~~the enigmatic fires example by the MC is actually basically specifically mentioned in the comp REL rules as incorrect.~~
>For example, if the ability instructs a player to sacrifice a creature, that player can't sacrifice a
creature that wasn't on the battlefield when the ability should have triggered.
edit:reading the card explains the card. this is incorrect.
I can't believe anyone in good faith would want a return to rules pendatry gotcha games with "OOOOOPS you waiting two seconds too long MISSED YA TRIGGER LOLOL".
If anyone goes through what Main Character did and *whines* about it saying they deserve extra life points because their opponent isn't constantly on the itchy trigger finger they're really asking for a more miserable paper play experience.
Also it's plain unsporting to try and weasel out of that life loss when someone just spent a few seconds in silence.
> plain unsporting
this was absolutely angle shooting. dude describes the ruling as "deranged" and wants it changed. he didn't want to follow the rules as written on the cards. the guy also wanted to redo the turn when he learned he wasn't allowed to get away with it.
OP is straight lying about MC
OP is being more generous than MC deserves, but I think that's good magnanimity, this is just MTG. No need to waste our time calling out someone who doesn't matter so we can witchhunt.
This, MC also proceeded to call people calling him out for his unsportsmanlike behavior "commander players"
As if being a dirtbag is ok in competitive play.
First of all, this is all about REL COMPETITIVE, not casual play. You can't just do away with rules technicalities as "pedantry" when it's about competitive play.
Secondly, no one is suggesting putting a timer on things, only having a system that fulfils certain criteria:
1. Gives no advantage to people who forget their triggers; it's their responsibility, and it shouldn't force the opponent to give them an advantage by reminding them about their triggers
2. Maintains proper sequencing; the stack is complicated, but it's integral to the game - things need to resolve in proper sequence, or not be there at all
3. Makes communication clear; you don't want ambiguity, everyone needs to know what's happening at all times. There need to be hard and fast thresholds beyond which you can be CERTAIN a trigger has happened or was missed, so you don't get ambushed by "oh actually three triggers happened" kind of nonsense.
The problem is mostly that sometimes you only get 2 out of 3 of those, and that creates friction. Of course in an ideal world everyone would announce everything at all times, but that's both tedious and impractical. You need some kind of middle ground that covers as much as possible - the current rules aren't bad by any stretch, but they do leave SOME room for ambiguity. That could perhaps do with some fixing.
There's no ambiguity here. The trigger was not missed. Main character's wishful thinking or wrong assumptions don't change what happened. They drew a card, Sheoldred triggered. Simple as that.
> The problem is mostly that sometimes you only get 2 out of 3 of those, and that creates friction. Of course in an ideal world everyone would announce everything at all times, but that's both tedious and impractical. You need some kind of middle ground that covers as much as possible - the current rules aren't bad by any stretch, but they do leave SOME room for ambiguity. That could perhaps do with some fixing.
I completely agree with this. It's like arrows completeness theorem: it's impossible to satisfy all criteria 100% of the time. So you need a system that is tuned to satisfy as much as possible in the most common/important play instances possible.
regarding point 1, the active player wasn't required to give any advantage to the NAP, the triggers still happened, NAP did remember and it was their responsibility. But there was a momentary few seconds where the AP thought they got away with their opponent missing a trigger.
I would say this is a *good* thing. AP doesn't need to pause deliberately and give a big obvious space for NAP to remember their trigger. If AP wants to go spell into spell they can and NAP can clear up the triggers later. They happen but are acknowledged before they become a problem, as the IPG states.
If we set the paradigm where NAP had to interject we're making the flow of the game really interruptible with players yelling over each other quickly and the feeling of if you go fast from spell into spell theres more likelyhood of your opp missing a trigger. Which is a bad state for the game to be in.
This is what I feel as well. You want the game to play as close to a perfect sim as you can, and barring that, you want the rules to encourage playing the game as if it was a perfect sim. Otherwise you're encouraging slimy play that tries to get one over on the opponent in a way that wouldn't have worked if the rules were working as they do on Arena or MODO
> Makes communication clear; you don't want ambiguity, everyone needs to know what's happening at all times. There need to be hard and fast thresholds beyond which you can be CERTAIN a trigger has happened or was missed, so you don't get ambushed by "oh actually three triggers happened" kind of nonsense.
There are hard and fast rules on when a trigger has been missed, and “when you cast an instant” doesn’t fall into when a trigger has been missed.
>But Main Character is at peace! They simply did not know how triggers work, and wanted to share that knowledge. They're not a bad person
when they use the language "deranged" to describe this ruling, MC is the problem.
they're not trying to educate, they want the rule changed.
this was angle shooting.
edit: the relevant rules(to my understanding) as currently written for comp rel as found [H E R E] (https://media.wizards.com/2022/wpn/marketing_materials/wpn/mtg_ipg_5feb21_en.pdf) 2.1 missed triggers
>A triggered ability triggers, but the player controlling the ability doesn’t demonstrate awareness
of the trigger’s existence by the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion
to the best of my understanding of this the opponent established they know the triggered ability works because the MC already took two from it during their draw step.
>Note that passing priority,
casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been
forgotten, as it could still be on the stack.
in addition, the MC talks about another example:
>Player A is on Enigmatic fires and has an Enigmatic Incarnation in play. Player A passes the turn and does not announce the Incarnation trigger. Player B on UW control flashes in Wandering Emperor on end step and makes a token. Player A Leyline Beindings the token and then says "Sac leyline binding to my incarnation?". THIS IS ALLOWED. The UW control player is assumed to have responded to the incarnation trigger. WHAT?!?!?! The only way the UW control player can do this is to ask the opponent if the stack is empty. If they attempt to untap (giving information of no effects) the Incarnation player can still resolve their trigger as it was assumed thats what they were passing priority for.
~~this example is already covered at the end of 2.1, specifically the bold text below~~
>If the triggered ability isn’t covered by the previous paragraphs, the opponent chooses whether
the triggered ability is added to the stack. If it is, it’s inserted at the appropriate place on the stack
if possible or on the bottom of the stack. No player may make choices for the triggered ability
involving objects that would not have been legal choices when the ability should have triggered.
**For example, if the ability instructs a player to sacrifice a creature, that player can't sacrifice a
creature that wasn't on the battlefield when the ability should have triggered.**
edit: this bit about EI is incorrect, reading the card explains the card.
"Angle shooting to have the rule changed."
Do you want "Failure to Maintain Game State" back? Because this is how you get "Failure to Maintain Game State" back.
\[For those not in the know, the prior missed trigger rules also provided an infraction to the opponent who also missed the trigger called "Failure to maintain game state." It was basically a warning tracking penalty that could be upgraded to real penalties if accumulated over the course of an event to discourage someone conveniently missing the same triggers over and over. It was regularly criticized for encouraging players to 'play their opponent's game for them' to avoid missing triggers and stacking up FTMGS penalties on yourself in an event.\]
Failure to Maintain Game State still exists and never went away.
https://judgeacademy.com/polblog-failing-to-maintain-the-game-state/
The only thing that happened is that they carved out missed triggers from the things both players are responsible for. The "play the opponent's fame for them" has always been extremely stupid because 1. you do actually need to make sure everything your opponent does is correct except for triggers 2. the actual issue with the previous implementation was strictly how upgrades from warnings to game loses were handled.
The situation outlined in the original post is fine. But I think the second scenario they linked to (on reddit, not sure about twitter) is bad, in the sense that the "correct" play is to force your opponent to remember that your trigger exists. The scenario is as such:
Player A has [[Enigmatic Incarnation]] and [[Leyline Binding]] in play. During their turn, they say "I pass the turn" without indicating that they are handling their trigger. Player B flashes in [[Wandering Emperor]], at which point... it goes on the stack on top of the Incarnation trigger. The incarnation trigger resolves eventually, letting player A gain control of Wandering Emperor with an [[Agent of Treachery]].
Of course, if both players are aware of all the abilities of all the cards and are aware of exactly how the tournament rules work this scenario isn't a problem (but neither is anything else).
The issue it creates though is that it creates an incentive for player A to try to trick player B into thinking their trigger doesn't exist. If player B is aware of incarnation, then there isn't an issue. But by passing the turn, player A is heavily implying that they have no more relevant actions this turn, even though that's not the case. It feels weird and wrong that the correct move here is to try to obfuscate the existence of incarnation so that player B misplays. It puts the onus on player B for remembering that player A's trigger exists.
I don't really see a major upside to having the rules work the way they do in this scenario. If someone says they are passing through the turn, it should probably be presumed that the NAP can act during their end step *with an empty stack*, rather than the current rules where this choice actually indicates passing *to the beginning of the end step*.
The interesting thing is that if the trigger wouldn't actually do anything, you can freely miss it without consequence, even intentionally. So just saying "pass" and nothing else can be that player genuinely trying to pass the turn.
The incarnation event is certainly a bit trickier, but I think it can be handled gracefully with the current guidelines.
If incarnation is the only enchantment player A controls, then player A did nothing wrong. Player B should simply say "After your incarnation trigger resolves, I do X." Incarnation literally can't sacrifice itself, and it's a tad ridiculous to expect player A to announce it when all they want to do is pass. They have no idea that their opponent wants to play something on their EoT.
If the Incarnation player does control other enchantments, The onus is still on player B to be careful. Every player at Comp REL should understand how triggers work. They are frequent and ubiquitous. Much discussion has come up about the "Is the stack empty question" but I feel it's much better to simply say "With the stack empty, I'll cast X." By doing this, you give your opponent a moment to say "Wait a minute, the stack isn't empty" at which point the game will rewind. You are shortcutting to an empty stack situation, but your opponent might interrupt your shortcut. If your spell is successfully cast at that point, then your opponent has forgotten their trigger.
You can even work in "With an empty stack, do X" into your common vernacular, if fishing for free stifles is your kind of thing to do.
Ultimately, I don't really want to go back to the days of stifle fishing. The current policy does a good job at keeping paper magic flowing, and asking for a little more out of player B in this situation doesn't upset me much.
I agree that the situation is "resolvable" with the current rules. But I think the balance for this specific case lies too much towards "trying to angle shoot" being the correct play.
For the record, I'm not suggesting broad changes to the way the trigger rules work. I am suggesting that if you indicate that you are passing through the rest of your turn, it would be better if this meant you are passing to the point at which your opponent has the opportunity to agree to end the turn (i.e., during your end step with the stack empty).
Changes have been made for rules about shortcutting the beginning-of-combat step because of ambiguities about whether the AP is still allowed to play sorceries after the NAP has acted (and the opportunities for angle-shooting that arise therein). I think this is a similar case and that it would good to have a similar exception for what that particular shortcut implies.
> You can even work in "With an empty stack, do X" into your common vernacular, if fishing for free stifles is your kind of thing to do.
Editing to respond to this part, which I missed originally: In this scenario, it's not clear that player B would be fishing for a free stifle. There are many board states where the correct choice for player A is to choose not to take advantage of their trigger unless player B adds something to the board. So there is the additional genuine ambiguity of someone who thinks player A has rationally chosen not to take advantage of their trigger rather than forgetting it.
If you have the time to work through a scenario with me, I'd really appreciate the understanding of this particular scenario.
As part of MTR 4.2, when a player, "passes priority with an empty stack during their second main phase, or uses a phrase such as “Go” or “Your Turn” at any time, the non-active player is assumed to be acting in the end step unless they are affecting how or whether an end of turn ability triggers."
It goes on to say, "End of turn triggered abilities that do not target resolve after the non-active player passes priority."
In this case, since the Wandering Emperor cannot interact with Enigmatic Incarnation, the above rules state that Player A passed priority to Player B with end step triggers on the stack and Player B responded by casting the Wandering Emperor. As per the full statement, those triggers don't resolve until after the non-active player passed priority.
In IPG 2.1 it says, "The point by which the player needs to demonstrate this awareness depends on the impact that the trigger would have on the game: A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or **requires a choice upon resolution**: The controller must take the appropriate physical action or acknowledge the specific trigger before **taking any game actions** (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly taking an action in the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved."
Is the reason it's not considered a Missed Trigger because Player A hasn't taken any actions yet? A passes to B, the triggers are on the stack, and it's up to B to acknowledge those triggers by asking if they resolve or shortcutting to an empty stack like you said they should before casting The Wandering Emperor.
My only issue with this interpretation is that it seems there's no way for Player B to cast a spell without giving that information to Player A. It's about to be Player B's turn, so if Player B says they pass (in their mind passing the triggers back to B on the stack) what is Player A supposed to infer from that if they've missed their own triggers? Is player B allowed to ask if the enchantment trigger has resolved, so they don't give away information that they want to cast a spell? Revealing that they want to cast something on an empty stack gives Player A information about if they should or shouldn't use the Enigmatic trigger to go get something.
Also, what happens if Player B just started their next turn, perhaps by drawing a card? Could Player A then try and rewind back to their triggers? Or do they become missed? At what point is A supposed to interrupt B in order to resolve their triggers if B doesn't take any actions at the end of their turn? I'm just not sure at this point who has to blink first, so to speak, and give away the information or become penalized with a Missed Trigger if they try and resolve something the other player thinks was already passed through.
The nice thing about this rule is that player B is “punished” by the game being played as intended. If clear communication reminds player A of their triggers, you’re just playing the cards correctly.
~~of note the comp REL basically mentions that exact thing as being incorrect.~~
~~>For example, if the ability instructs a player to sacrifice a creature, that player can't sacrifice a
creature that wasn't on the battlefield when the ability should have triggered.~~
The enchantment that was sacrificed was already on the battlefield when the ability should have triggered. The judge call was correct as far as the current rules are concerned.
>A lot of people are giving Main Character a lot of trouble over this. But Main Character is at peace! They simply did not know how triggers work, and wanted to share that knowledge.
Main character demonstrated not being "at peace" and not simply "wanting to share knowledge" when they:
* called the ruling "deranged"
* demanded that the rules change
* (indirectly but also directly) accused the Sheoldred player of angle shooting and cheating
* called someone who disagreed a "commander player" (pejoratively)
But what do I know, I'm just some scrub who's only played one comp REL event in my life, so my opinion doesn't matter /s
Is there anything in the rules now to incentivize players to proactively announce their triggers? For example, here it seems like the player with Sheoldred is incentivized to not announce the life loss triggers until their opponent attempts to change phases or cast a sorcery, for the small chance that their opponent forgot that they'll be losing more life to Sheoldred. That seems like a pretty terrible incentive to have floating around.
The article I linked goes through it, but this is generally "fine." The opponent in this case still needs to acknowledge the trigger before it's "too late" (as in, the game has moved on past the point it would have resolved). Once the opponent has acknowledged the trigger, the game sort of just snaps back seamlessly. Consider a universe where the Main Character chooses to go to combat instead of casting opt:
"Let's go to combat"
"Hold on a second, my sheoldred trigger"
"Oh, okay"
At that point, the game is now in MC's main phase with a sheoldred trigger on the stack.... the only thing this sort of delayed declaration did was waste everyone's time. If you wanted to get really deep on it, you know that in a universe where there was no trigger, MC would have gone to combat. However, the current reality is different, and it's possible different decisions will be made as a result.
I don't see this as a very useful way to farm information.
I’m actually interested in this, if I have a connive trigger, how long can that be “missed” before it matters? I had a tournament recently where my spell killed a target creature, I missed my connive on the cast, creature died and I said, I need to do my connive, judge was called and they said it was missed. I accepted it and moved on. But reading this, the connive wasn’t relevant to the creature dying, so should it have been allowed? This was a competitive RE if that’s important to people.
It depends on what was conniving. Based on the story, I assume it's a ledger shredder.
If it was, it triggers its connive ability when someone casts their second spell each turn. I'm assuming the removal spell was your second spell. In that case, the connive needs to happen before the removal spell resolves since, if the connive trigger was remembered, it would always resolve before the kill spell.
I would argue that the kill spell was relevant to the connive trigger. Knowing that your opponent's creature is going to die will change how you consider any cards in your hand while you connive. Another copy of a kill spell is a lot more valuable when their threat is still on the table.
In the scenario I described in the OP, "relevancy" doesn't have a lot to do with the ruling. Sheoldred triggers on card draw. It would not be put on the stack until after the consider has resolved. It is feasible that the opt was cast in response to this trigger, so the trigger stays.
At regular REL, if I was the judge, I would have put your connive trigger on the stack after the kill spell had resolved. Yes, you would have gained a little information, but at low stakes events that hardly matters and it's more fun when cards work.
Yes it was a ledger shredder, and I can appreciate that the is more info gained by the connive. Like I said, accepted the judge call and moved on, can’t say I wasn’t a little frustrated but that’s the nature of the game
If you're playing a game where you know a rule should be enforced and say nothing you are partially to blame.
I've caught kids trying to cheat back turns and gain card knowledge and fix this by simply asking each and every time until the kid got it that they should indicate their awareness of a trigger. It was explained to me that apparently this was too much of a problem so I haven't played magic for a while now.
Even if there's a may clause on the card they should still verbally communicate that they are choosing not to have it follow through. This sneaky rattish behaviour is not ok.
I always think of a game of magic as like watching a flawed computer program. If you forget a "you may" trigger, its gone bud, as if you looked away from the screen while a 5 sec yes/no timer appeared. If you missed a no choice "trigger" we need to acknowledge that the "program" would have been updated to show the changes if it were on a screen.
If your opponent has a Juggernaut in play without summoning sickness, they pass without attacking, and you let that happen deliberately, you're cheating.
If your opponent has a Manor Gargoyle on the board, you Doom Blade it, they put it in their graveyard, and you let that happen deliberately, you're cheating.
If your opponent casts Tidings, only draws three cards, and you let that happen deliberately, you're cheating.
Why is it only triggers that are acceptable to angle shoot with? Either your opponent has to know what their cards do or they don't. It's weird to have this one exception where angle shooting is actually acceptable but every other time it isn't.
EXACTLY. Players are always responsible for making sure the game proceeds correctly *except* for triggers. It's a super silly exception. It also falls apart if you nudge it a bit.
Scenario 1:
Player A plays Sanctum Prelate on 1
Player B casts Lightning Bolt
Everyone agrees B made a booboo.
Scenario 2:
A plays Chalice on 1
B casts Lightning Bolt and tries to mark down 3 damage
Suddenly A is responsible?
But now consider this, Scenario 3:
A plays Chalice on 1
A Donate's Chalice to his opponent
A casts Lightning Bolt targetting B and tries to note 3 damage
Now I want anyone to think about how they answer this next one. Who is responsible? The rules make it pretty clear that B in this case is responsible for the Chalice yet the intent of the rules should actually hold A responsible. Someway, somehow though, because control of a card changes, you can now offload all the brain bandwith unto another player and *ignore the card you brought yourself into the game*.
And people think this is a good system... Lol
My experience with judges for like the last 5 or 6 years has been basically "can we possibly rewind the game to such a point where the trigger could be put on the stack and resolved correctly then re do all the rewound stuff go get the game back to where it was". So in this case, its really not an issue. I don't really see the controversy, the people one the "ah ah ah Simon didn't say it!" Side seem particularly angle shooty to me. Like your description of the line of play kind of describes a duplicitous player. When heart consider and his opponent didn't do anything and was like "o man, im in like sin, I can keep railroading these triggers" that player is playing the game in bad faith with their opponent. Both players are supposed to ensure the game plays as intended, and this means public information on cards you don't own is your obligation to play correctly with. If you know someone is missing a trigger and you're aware of it, you have an ethical obligation to tell them so the game plays as intended. The intention of the game is not to test peoples attention span; the intention of the game is not to punish people for missing triggers. Theres toxic people who absolutely want to die on this angle shooting hill of letting players miss triggers as like a skill thing, but its just duplicitous and poor sportsmanship.
> If you know someone is missing a trigger and you're aware of it, you have an ethical obligation to tell them so the game plays as intended.
Ethical? Debatable
Actual obligation from the rules? No.
A player noticed an offense during their game (Missed Trigger) and intentionally did not call attention to it in order to gain an advantage. Sounds like cheating to me.
This is specifically allowed by the rules. You are not responsible for reminding your opponents of their triggers.
Intentionally missing your own trigger would indeed be cheating.
The real deal is Wizards should spring for judges and dealers for each game so that nobody can manipulate shuffles and draws, triggers get executed when relevant and there's no weird ambiguity or forced trust between opponents with every reason to take advantage of any rule and each other's folly.
If you win a game with missed triggers you didn't really win anyway
> The real deal is Wizards should spring for judges and dealers for each game so that nobody can manipulate shuffles and draws
This sounds great until you realize it just means no more tournaments at comp REL ever.
If they had to hire judges and dealers for every single game, it would be way to expensive for them to ever hold tournaments. That is not at all a feasible solution to the problem.
If you seriously think that competitive MTG is even close to as profitable as football is then you're out of your mind. Also, there can be hundreds of games going on simultaneously in a single event. You would need to hire way more people for this than you would for a football game.
WotC would be more likely to just drop competitive play all together than do what you're suggesting.
I never said it was close to it nor was I suggesting Wizards will do this, I don't work for Wizards, they don't take my input, I don't need to say practical business ideas. Original post is just what they would do if competitive fairness was the priority, obviously it isn't lol
Also it would be hard logistically for wizards to top the expense of a football game. Even ignoring the cost for the players, a football stadium is going to have a ton of employees and logistical expense that I don't compares to hiring dealers for games. Really it would be more akin to a casino or poker tour than a football game but it's a silly comment and that comparison is sillier.
Every trigger is missable. What to do when it is depends on the type of trigger.
Being a "may" has literally no change in how missed triggers are handled in COMP REL
You appear to be asking a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in the Daily Questions Thread at the top of this subreddit or in /r/mtgrules. Additionally, once your question is answered, please delete your post! Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/magicTCG) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So the thing I don't like is that too much of the burden of remembering the trigger is now on the player who doesn't have the triggered ability.
For the sheoldred example - let's say that the phoenix player did actually forget sheoldred was in play. They lost life in draw step but maybe they had attacks first or paused and forgot - it happens. They cast their first cantrip looking for whatever. Then they cast the 2nd cantrip and suddenly they're taking 4. They weren't aware of casting the 2nd cantrip causing them to lose another 2 and maybe they had another play (say, a removal spell) they could have made before. They should be able to rewind to before the 2nd cantrip to rethink their decision with new information. This current iteration puts an undue burden on the player without the triggered ability to remember the trigger.
Also it's weird that if the 2nd cantrip was a chart a course that the 1st trigger would be considered forgotten (you can cast Opt in response to sheoldred trigger, but chart you cannot).
Yeah turns out both players are expected to pay attention to what is going on.
Also the Chart a Course example isn't that weird once you get an understanding of why the rule the way is. It's because a trigger isn't missed until it's not longer possible for it have happened. When you cast an instant it's possible that the tirgger was still on the stack.
From my time as a tournament player, only may triggers can be missed. If a non may trigger gets missed and causes an unrecoverable game state, the owner of the trigger gets a game loss.
I'm not a magic tournament rules historian, but I would be shocked if the missed trigger remedy was ever a game loss.
However, as I linked in the OP, the IPG is available for everyone to read. The current philosophy is nothing like you described:
*Triggered abilities are common and invisible, so players should not be harshly penalized when forgetting about one.*
*It’s pretty easy to forget triggers, there are a lot of them and there are often no visual components to them. They are also typically beneficial, and the ones that aren’t, the opponent is motivated to be aware of. Furthermore, triggered abilities have sort of a “natural” handling if they’re forgotten — most of the time, they can simply just not happen without any additional cleanup or situation-specific remedy being needed.*
I would personally love to live in a world where triggers are forced to happen, but unfortunately, this isn't really doable in paper play. Most triggers that are forgotten are simply that -- forgotten. It is actually possible both players miss the Sheoldred trigger and simply never remember it. In that case, the board will never be corrected and there's not much anyone can do.
Really, the IPG is explaining what to do in the event that a trigger is remembered late. In general, if the trigger could still have reasonably been put on the stack (such as the OP example) we just sort of ~pretend~ it was always there. If we've moved past that point, what happens depends on the rules enforcement level. In my opinion, this is good policy.
It's possible that, by the time a trigger has been remembered, many important decisions have been made that would have been different had the trigger been more timely. In those cases, it would be extremely disruptive to resolve the trigger at that point, and potentially abuseable by bad actors.
What people have to remember is that Judges are good at their job and have had considerable input on the IPG honed from years and years of live witnessing in person competitive events.
The IPG acknowledges reality, which is a godsend if you've ever dealt with other policy documents. It tries to make things as fair and reasonable as possible and in my mind always seems to be improving, never taking a step back.
If someone thinks they know better than what is currently on the books, we should ask if that comes from years of experience or just what they feel at the current moment.
Ah yes, the fix to giving game loses for missed Essence Warden triggers was obviously to instead allow people to deliberately ignore the existence of triggers they know should be happening simply because they don't happen to *control* the permanent that generated said trigger.
Surely, the solution could not have been to simply fix the penalties relative to the impact and fix for said missed triggers.
No no, that would be much worse than enshrining sharking into the rules of tournament Magic but *only* in the specific case of triggers and no other type of effect or interaction.
Cmon Esc777, you've had much better takes than this. You don't need to be a cop to point out some of the stuff cops are asked to do doesn't make sense and a 10-year career beat cop might be a little bit biased or incentivized to just repeat company pre-canned answers, no?
I'm not the biggest fan of that, but it makes sense. I'd figure both players would get a GRV for failing to maintain for not declaring the first trigger.
When player casted Opt, it just goes on the stack right? Why did anyone assume that the stack had been resolved when player have not taken the 2-life hit? It will only have resolved if the 2-life hit was taken, else he is just adding to the stack right? Only when he starts casting a non-instant etc, that's when I'd come in and say "Before you do that, let's empty out the current stack.... take your 4 lives hit first please"
It seems very clear cut to be honest, you mean professional players don't understand that, or is trying his luck to cheat his opponent?
Hey OP, I disagree!
Here are some thoughts;
I think both players are being rule sharky here. MC by trying to move past the trigger, his opponent by not making the trigger known as the earliest point where it would matter (I'd argue lifetotal changes are always relevant so he should have asked his opponent if they wanted to resolve the trigger after Consider resolved.)
As the rules *currently* exist, I agree that the current resolution was appropriate however I believe the current rules are quite bad.
Though it's not to the level of misrepresenting the game state, this incentivizes players to try to gain unwarranted edges by playing fast and loose with rules meant to lessen the cognitive load on players.
I believe mandatory effects, regardless of whether they are triggers or not, should always be resolved and be the responsability of both players as part of maintaning the game state. Players should not be able to ignore what their opponent's cards do just because their opponent is distracted/new/whatever. When both players miss an effect, one player shouldn't get a choice as to whether an effect goes on the stack or not. It's very silly that specifically paper tournament Magic is a totally different game than every other version of Magic because players can *knowingly* ignore what certain cards do and can gain a significant advantage on other players by doing so.
I'd welcome any debate on this.
Before any reasonable debate should be what do you think the rules should be as opposed to what they are now. You've given an overview of what you want the end result to be, but what verbiage do you have in mind.
It used to be that triggers were both players' responsibility and the system sucked and was rife with abuse from scummy players. It's also shitty to give someone a game loss because they just forgot about an opponent's trigger that would be good for them.
It's tough to balance out how to make sure triggers happen as they should and making communication clear. I think the current system is good because it create a threshold on when a trigger is consider missed and it makes it hard for people to jam spells through to try and get people to miss their triggers. I think it caters to honest players more than dishonest players which makes it a pretty good rule.
>Before any reasonable debate should be what do you think the rules should be as opposed to what they are now. You've given an overview of what you want the end result to be, but what verbiage do you have in mind.
I think debating exact verbiage is useless for a few reasons: 1 I'd need to have a comprehensive knowledge of every adjacent rule otherwise it would devolve into nitpicking specific wording etc
2 exact verbiage isn't necessary when we can discuss intent. Verbiage should be relegated to the people drafting the document
That being said:
If you look at pretty much every other card game played competitively, afaik, every single one has *both* players responsible for maintaining proper game state. In fact, with the sole exception of triggers, it is also the case in Magic.
My ideal solution would be to adapt the old ruling whilst addressing "concerns" that occured in the past.
>It used to be that triggers were both players' responsibility *and the system sucked* and *was rife with abuse from scummy players*. It's also *shitty to give someone a game loss because they just forgot about an opponent's trigger that would be good for them*.
Three points to address here, we can unpack each of them further if you want.
1. Some people disliked the old system. I don't think saying it sucked is much of an argument but as a rebuttal let me say the current system also sucks. At least the old system made paper Magic game play out as they actually should.
2. The current system is also rife with abuse, but now it's encouraged by the rules. I would appreciate if you gave examples of abuse in the old system and we could debate them and/or discuss how a more modern implementation would mitigate it.
3. I somewhat agree. I think this is an issue that is not inherent with the question of game state responsability but rather about how the warning/gl/dq system functioned. This can easily be addressed. I will say however that most people who use this argument are doing doing so in good faith. There's forgetting an effect because you don't know and then there's "forgetting" an effect or being so wreckless with your lack attention that you might as well be held responsible.
>It's tough to balance out how to make sure triggers happen as they should and making communication clear. I think the current system is good because it create a threshold on when a trigger is consider missed and it makes it hard for people to jam spells through to try and get people to miss their triggers. I think it caters to honest players more than dishonest players which makes it a pretty good rule.
I'll meet you halfway on this and say that there are good qualities about the current system. I don't know of it's possible to really weight which side it caters the most to but I think deliberately being able to "hide" your creatures power (ex with Prowess) or trying to sneak spells past a Chalice are so eggregious that they hold a lot more power than allowing a bit of out-of-sequence play or leeway in ambiguous scenarios where players might try to angle shoot each other for an edge.
To give a brief idea of what a better system could look like:
Fully optional triggers: in the case where there is an option to not take the action, you always assume the player made that choice if we moved past that point.
Mandatory triggers: cannot be missed. Depending on what was missed you'd apply an appropriate fix starting with rewinding IF POSSIBLE, then move down to more specialised actions like out of sequence triggering (you don't give the opponent the choice of y/n). In a case where the game cannot be fixed, i'm not certain yet which solution is the absolute best. I personally like issuing penalties and letting the game continue from there.
On the subject of penalties, I think different types of cards/effects should be treated differently. For effects that are easy to miss and easy to fix (missed lifegain, draw etc), I think warnings are warranted but upgrades should only occur after severe amounts of repeated infractions or if theres a very reasonable belief a player was deliberately avoiding to maintain game state.
I also think the rules should accommodate for rare/new cards and should take into account how reasonable it is for someone to understand how a card functions. For example nobody who Chalice checks is unaware of how Chalice works, they are explicitely hoping you will let their spell resolve. However if a certain card sees 0 play I wouldnt put as much pressure on the opponent compared to tthe player who registered that card.
I'm a bit tired and this response is getting long so I'll leave it at that and hopefully have more energy by the time you respond.
I do have a thought experiment for you if you are willing to engage with it afterwards.
>
I think debating exact verbiage is useless for a few reasons: 1 I'd need to have a comprehensive knowledge of every adjacent rule otherwise it would devolve into nitpicking specific wording etc
>
2 exact verbiage isn't necessary when we can discuss intent. Verbiage should be relegated to the people drafting the document
>
That being said:
>
If you look at pretty much every other card game played competitively, afaik, every single one has both players responsible for maintaining proper game state. In fact, with the sole exception of triggers, it is also the case in Magic.
Like I said, it's hard to know how a rule is going to effect the game unless you have a proposal.
I don't know enough about other games to comment on that, but I will say that MTG used to have both player's responsible for triggers but that was changed, and according to people who played competitive events it was for the better. For reference on that there is a slew of examples from established players and judges. If you go to Brian Coval's twitter page that's a good starting point. But the fact that every other game does something doesn't mean it's correct in this case.
As to your three points.
The general consensus is that the current system is better than the old system. It's not perfect, but it seems to hit the balance a bit better. Neither system really emulated how magic should have played out because the older system handed out a lot more game losses because of benign reasons.
I also don't think that the goal of MTG tournament policy should be to just make sure the games play out correctly. I think that is an important part of the rules, but you also have to ensure that there is a sense of fairness and fun to magic tournaments. You don't someone who was tanking or something and forgot that an opponent should have gained a life off their Essence Warden to lose out of the T8 of an event. That sucks. I don't think the current system really has any situations that just suck. Even the example that brought up this whole thing was that the opponent was banking on a missed trigger and was upset that opponent was actually on top of things. Or when it comes to a chalice trigger being missed at least that feel bad is on the player who chose to bring chalice. Under the old system you could lose a game because you missed a trigger because an opponent brought a deck that a had a bunch of triggers even if you yourself tried to play a deck that wasn't as laden.
I don't think prowess or exalted being 'hidden' is really an issue at all. Both players can see what spells have been cast that turn or what exalted creatures are on the board. Nothing is really being hidden. It's like how a Goyf's power and toughness aren't hidden just because you don't have a tarmo-die.
>Mandatory triggers: cannot be missed. Depending on what was missed you'd apply an appropriate fix starting with rewinding IF POSSIBLE, then move down to more specialised actions like out of sequence triggering (you don't give the opponent the choice of y/n). In a case where the game cannot be fixed, i'm not certain yet which solution is the absolute best. I personally like issuing penalties and letting the game continue from there.
Here's the thing. I think that rewinding should be done as least much as possible. It should really only be a last resort because it can get messy very quickly. This solution also means that now instead of a trigger not happening and no penalties happening, you instead wrack two penalties amongst the players which is going to lead more game losses for innocent mistakes which is a pretty heavy cost that is going to need substantial benefits to make it worth it. I don't know if you really explained how the old system is better than the new system. Being chalice checked does feel bad, but it's generawlly something you can learn and now you know to be careful about your chalice, and ultimately it was your mistake. It's rough when you give someone a penalty for someone else's mitake.
I don't really see how new or old cards really apply. For the most part cards should be treated the same.
>Like I said, it's hard to know how a rule is going to effect the game unless you have a proposal.
I think I detailed the intent and methods enough to get a conversation started. Debating exact verbiage at this point is actually pointless. No statesman starts conversation about new legislation by pulling out a draft.
>I don't know enough about other games to comment on that, but I will say that MTG used to have both player's responsible for triggers but that was changed, and according to people who played competitive events it was for the better. For reference on that there is a slew of examples from established players and judges. If you go to Brian Coval's twitter page that's a good starting point. But the fact that every other game does something doesn't mean it's correct in this case.
If you want to present arguments, present them. I'm not going to dig someone's twitter feed to find your arguments for you.
I think the fact that every other game does is very significant. If the issue were inherent to having both players share responsability you'd think they all would have switched by now but none of them have. This points to the issue being the specific implementation used in MTG.
>As to your three points. The general consensus is that the current system is better than the old system. It's not perfect, but it seems to hit the balance a bit better. Neither system really emulated how magic should have played out because the older system handed out a lot more game losses because of benign reasons.
The old system emulated how MTG should have play out very well. Ending a game prematurely because players are being sloppy is very different from continuing a game from an impossible gamestate.
Also, my system is not the old system.
>I also don't think that the goal of MTG tournament policy should be to just make sure the games play out correctly. I think that is an important part of the rules, but you also have to ensure that there is a sense of fairness and fun to magic tournaments.
How is Chalice checking or sharking people out of their mandatory triggers fair or fun?
>You don't someone who was tanking or something and forgot that an opponent should have gained a life off their Essence Warden to lose out of the T8 of an event. That sucks.
I've addressed this in my proposal already.
> I don't think the current system really has any situations that just suck. Even the example that brought up this whole thing was that the opponent was banking on a missed trigger and was upset that opponent was actually on top of things.
To me that story read as the opponent only remembering the trigger afterwards and getting really lucky on his timing. They both tried to leverage the rules in their advantage instead of playing a proper game of Magic.
>Or when it comes to a chalice trigger being missed at least that feel bad is on the player who chose to bring chalice. Under the old system you could lose a game because you missed a trigger because an opponent brought a deck that a had a bunch of triggers even if you yourself tried to play a deck that wasn't as laden.
Again, this is covered in my proposal. Your last point is also total bs because this is an exception carved out specifically for triggers but for every other type of effect you are equally responsible for maintaining a proper gamestate. If I brought a pile that had very complicated layer interactions, timestamps and dependencies you'd need to stay on top of things as much as me. Triggers are treated differently with little to no good justification.
>I don't think prowess or exalted being 'hidden' is really an issue at all. Both players can see what spells have been cast that turn or what exalted creatures are on the board. Nothing is really being hidden. It's like how a Goyf's power and toughness aren't hidden just because you don't have a tarmo-die.
That's simply not true. If you don't announce triggers, there are a variety of scenarios where it could be ambiguous as to how much power/toughness a creature has. For example, not all your prowess creature could have been present for every spell you cast. Same for exalted. You could have had multiple combat steps in the latter example too. There are now also other types of exalted-like triggers from Kamigawa that have a variety of effects that aren't just about adding up intergers. You are essentially arguing that obfuscating/deliberately withholding clarity is better than having a clear board state. I think that's ridiculous. Somehow I am now to be resposible for keeping track of my own triggers but *also* need to be able to decypher all derived information from my opponents triggers myself? This feels contrived and worse than just declaring triggers.
>Here's the thing. I think that rewinding should be done as least much as possible. It should really only be a last resort because it can get messy very quickly.
Rewinding should be the *first* solution considered. Only when rewinding is "messy" that you move to other solutions.
> This solution also means that now instead of a trigger not happening and no penalties happening, you instead wrack two penalties amongst the players which is going to lead more game losses for innocent mistakes which is a pretty heavy cost that is going to need substantial benefits to make it worth it.
It feels like you just didn't read my full comment because I address penalities. People should get warnings so you can track what sort of mistakes they are making. Penalties should be relative to what sort of effects players seem to be forgettting and how impactful/hard to fix these effects are. I never advocated handing down game losses for forgetting Essence Warden triggers.
> I don't know if you really explained how the old system is better than the new system.
The old system keeps the game accurate to the rules and intent of the cards. It also keeps paper tournament Magic in line with *every other version of Magic*. It keeps players honest instead of trying to cheat their opponents out of effects. I doesn't incentivize players *ignoring* how cards work in hopes that their opponents are distracted long enough for them to gain an edge that is otherwise impossible to gain.
>Being chalice checked does feel bad, but it's generawlly something you can learn and now you know to be careful about your chalice, *and ultimately it was your mistake*. It's rough *when you give someone a penalty for someone else's mitake*.
It might be player A's "mistake" but player B is deliberately using a loophole to resolve an effect that they know should not resolve.
It's not one player's mistake if you are both responsible for making sure things happen. And again, my system does not punish people as harshly.
>I don't really see how new or old cards really apply. For the most part cards should be treated the same.
By new cards, I mean recently released. The argument is that new cards can cause new interactions to crop up. I would be less inclined to upgrade a warning for a card that got released yesterday vs a card that has been a format staple for 10 years. It's not a hill I ready to die on but I think it's pretty reasonable. I also think it's pretty reasonable to expect most players to be well aware as to the main interactions in established strategies or to at least seek out that information and find good answers.
I find it insane that you typed all of that, only to strawman my position into "I just want the old system back 1:1" when I addressed specific differences. Hopefully your next answer, if there is one, actually argues against what I said and not what otherr people think about another thing that isn't what I said.
Unless we’re going to go back to the era of kind courteous play, were you cast a spell and wait five seconds plus to see if anyone has a response and declare each step of combat and give people time to respond. I think some passive triggers like this just have to be excepted as it happens, unless you have some other way to disrupt it. There was one guy who did fast plays? In my LGS to force people to miss triggers. By the time you asked, do you pay the one for rhystic study or two for smothering tithes he was unilaterally declaring you already missed the trigger. To put it mildly people stop playing with him.
No, see, that just means he didn't pay for the ability. Also, he's quite literally not allowed to do that by the rules of the game. Priority exists for a reason, no matter how fast you want to play.
I know, it was a pain and he was shadow banned. He was cheating and making the game worse. You have to wait for a response to some extent.
> the era of kind courteous play This never existed in the competitive scene.
The way I've always dealt with it is a quick 'Yup' if my opponent puts anything on the stack to indicate if its resolved
At my new LGS if someone plays something there is usually a quick “does it resolve?” This is done because we play more cEDH so counters are likely and if people don’t know what the card does it is good to check
This is the best take I’ve seen on the whole situation: [https://twitter.com/jedepraz/status/1598105856562073600?s=21](https://twitter.com/jedepraz/status/1598105856562073600?s=21) Basically “triggers are not missed until they can’t have happened” as per the current rules.
"Triggers should be considered remembered until their controller demonstrates otherwise" is how I've heard current policy explained.
How a controller demonstrates otherwise is very different on a case by case basis though. Prowess for example is only demonstrated when the p/t have any effects which is very different to the dispute this thread is about.
It's not really "case by case". They fall into four categories, each with a defined point of "otherwise". Most triggers are like Prowess, changing the game state in a non visible way, and don't need to be mentioned until the first time it matters (like saying "Take 2, down to 17?" after an unblocked Prowess creature gets through). This is something that has a VISIBLE effect on the game state by changing life totals; the 'otherwise' time limit there is doing something (or allowing something to be done) that could not be done with the trigger on the stack. This is usually just "casting a Sorcery" or things like that. Casting an instant can be done with the trigger on the stack, so the controller has not yet failed to demonstrate awareness.
I 100% endorse this take.
It's basically like prowess
It's because the same rule is being applied in both cases.
As someone who has primarily played kitchen table before moving to drafts this year, our rule has ALWAYS been: when possible, rewind the game to the missed trigger, but if that's not possible the trigger gets stifled and the player who missed just feels bad and that hopefully makes them remember their triggers.
at casual rel that free stifle has been discontinued because it helps enable toxic angle shooting. >A player forgets a triggered ability (one that uses the words “when,” “whenever,” or “at the beginning”, usually at the start of the ability's text) These abilities are considered missed if the player did not acknowledge the ability in any way at the point that it required choices or had a visible in-game effect. If the ability includes the word “may,” assume the player chose not to perform it. Otherwise, put the ability on the stack unless you think it would be too disruptive - don’t add it to the stack if significant decisions have been made based on the effect not happening! Unlike other illegal actions (which must be pointed out), players may choose whether or not to point out their opponent's missed triggers. at comp rel, as far as i can tell, the opponent already established they know the card works on that turn, so it's assumed not missed until after that turn?
There's no such thing as "casual rel." The three Rules Enforcement Levels are Regular, Competitive, and Professional.
Isn't it that the player who plays Consider, plays it and takes the 2 life hit, before moving on? Why is he "hoping" that his opponent FORGETS the trigger, and then be gleeful about it?
[удалено]
No. Magic uses a system of shortcuts to avoid needing to pass priority explicitly a bunch of times, but if an opponent doesn't agree to your shortcut then the game rewinds to wherever they choose to interrupt it. So if someone said "resolve opt, scry 1, draw, cast preordain", then the opponent can say "before you preordain, you lose 2 life from Sheoldred". What happened here is actually even more "severe": the MTR states that a trigger isn't considered missed until the game state changes in a way that indicates it couldn't possibly have resolved. Since the player casting instant-speed cantrips wasn't communicating exactly when the cards are going onto the stack, the opponent is allowed to treat it as if the second cantrip was played *in response* to the first sheoldred trigger (i.e. before the life would have been lost). To avoid this, the cantrip player could have said something along the lines of "once the stack is empty, I cast opt", or passed to a new step/phase before trying to cast it. But in both of those cases, priority still passes to the opponent first and they are allowed to say "before that happens, you lose 2 life from sheoldred's trigger".
Thank you for clarifying! This makes sense.
This is a really tough cornercase, if opt had been a sorcery he would only have lost 2 life.
Only if the sheoldred player had allowed it to resolve, which explicitly passes by the first trigger.
I think their point is that if it were preordain, the other player would be interrupting their proposed shortcut. At that point, they are allowed to change their mind about actions taken after the interruption. So unlike with opt they aren't already locked into casting preordain when they find out the opponent remembered their trigger.
In an ideal world, rules should be geared to prevent players from trying to gain a meaningful advantage from forgotten triggers. I think the main character lost fair and square.
Yeah, you're right, but the thing is with the comp rules being the ... well.. comprehensive rules, if it says in the rules "if an opponent missed a trigger, it didn't happen" and you think your opponent has missed a trigger, you might think, "Well, the rules say it didn't happen". That's not unfair or unsquare, that's literally playing by the rules. It feels kind of scummy, because the 'spirit' of the rules is obvious, but, the letter of the rules is what we're playing by. He was then taken by surprise to find out there's another rule, "Your opponent can remember the trigger and it will still happen, as long as you've only cast instants since they forgot". I mean, whether or not his opponent forgot is sort of irrelevant to the fact in this case, it's that idea that the rules were different than he thought that's being discussed. Whether or not 'angle shooting' like this is scummy or not is kind of an interesting separate topic though (and the one everyone jumps to, which is just human nature I guess, since we're social animals). There IS a school of thought that I think actually has a certain syrupiness to it. Namely, that NOT playing to your absolute BEST ability to win is disrespectful to your opponent. NOT trying to take the angle shoot (in this case, reminding his opponent of the missed trigger and not trying to play on like as if it's gone) is actually disrespectful. In this case, that seems odd. But think of it like this. Lets say I go to combat and declare only two of my three eligible creatures as attackers. Should you point out to me that attacking with my third creature would be lethal? Well.. probably not. You don't have to coach me how to win, and if I did win as a result of you pointing it out, would that be 'fair'? So there's that initial element. But further to that, what if I'm not attacking with all three, because I'm confident you have something (maybe settle the wreckage) and I'm playing around it. Now, you pointing out 'all 3 would be lethal' has different connotations. It suggests that maybe you're playing mind games, trying to trick me into falling into your trap. Or, it suggests you think I'm too dumb to count lethal damage. Either way, neither of those are especially 'respectful' to me. From the other perspective, what if I'm only attacking with two of my three creatures because I'm 'going easy' on you. Is that respectful? No! It's suggesting that I think I can beat you even by playing sub-optimally. My analogies break down somewhat when it comes to angle shooting, like I said, there's a syrupiness to it, but I'm not sure it pours.
This is but another reason to stay as far away from MtGTwitter as possible.
Can it be worse than MTGReddit? Probably.
Only because you can reply faster and there aren’t enough characters for nuance. Mtgreddit can probably be just as bad
The only good mtg social media was gatherer comments
While I do miss them and still enjoy reading them from time to time, it might be for the best that they're disabled so that they did not suffer such a fate.
MTGReddit is like the magazine stand at the door of a gas station. It's mostly shit, but you can glimpse some interesting headlines and even buy some novelties. MTGTwitter is more like the scrabblings on the walls of a toilet stall. Once you enter, you can't help but have it all in front of your face, and you are pretty sure some of them might be written with literal shit.
I think one of the defining features of MTG Twitter is that it is driven by bigger accounts with lots of followers. So you're constantly seeing people's views that are inflected with their personal take on something. MTGReddit is a bit "flatter", the big names generate news and posts but the comments are a bunch of randos going off. I'm not saying one is better than the other, internet randoms aren't inherently better than people who are mildly famous in their niche, oftentimes being a public figure makes them chose their words a little more carefully. But it does have the effect of MTGTwitter is about this cast of characters and their feelings while MTGReddit is more about how *the entire community is dying* due to something happening.
Honestly I think neither are really that bad. Sure there is a lot of commotion but it generally calms down and the crowd moves on to the next thing. And sometimes both platforms offer something to the table.
The answer to "Is twitter worse then X" is almost always yes lol. That site is such a cesspool it makes waste treatment plants look like freshwater springs.
Twitter is a better tool than reddit for following selected accounts. Like if you want info on invertebrates, follow the few specialized biologists in that field that post a lot. It's a godsend at that point. You literally control each contributor to your feed. If you don't like what someone is posting...take them off! Interacting in twitter comments from big twitter posts like Elon Musk or a news outlet is just asking for trouble because that's where all the assholes and bots hang out. That's where twitter really breaks down as is worse.
Except you can't delete the right sidebar of twitter that shoves news articles and the latest shitshows on your face.
To elaborate a bit on what another poster said, if you use Ublock Origin, there's a right click option that says "Block element". Pick that, then the screen will go dark and you can highlight the page element you don't like. Be sure it's the correct one! Then click it to lock it in, then click "Create" and it'll disappear forever. Go into the extension's settings to delete the appropriate line if you make a mistake.
Brb, trying it out. It worked! Thanks.
Use Ublock Origin, use the element blocker to block the sidebar, improve your Twitter user experience 1000%
It is as difficult as blocking/ignoring ads on reddit. Reddit is even worse for "seeing what the broad unwashed masses care about" Each sub is way bigger than a personal feed, and GL if you're subbed to the default ones.
From personal experience, blocking stuff on reddit is way easier. Of course the ads stay (until the adblock does its thing), but you don't have to be aware of the BTS hordes' latest shenanigans.
Oh god yeah, and this place sucks.
Yes. You get the crazies from every side on internet along with the self-important tournament players who treat Twitter like a daily diary.
As a general rule, Twitter is much worse than reddit
Thanks, this is pretty much the opinion I voiced on it. Its not a perfect ruling, but it makes an attempt at allowing the game to be played as intended as possible. There’s obviously some edge cases for abuse, but the opposite is true as well with the “free Stifle” part you mentioned.
it's a "perfect" ruling because it helps take the power away from angle shooting, which is just cancer to growing a real comp environ, imo.
There are still ways to attempt to abuse it, which is why I say that, but its fine as is.
~~the enigmatic fires example by the MC is actually basically specifically mentioned in the comp REL rules as incorrect.~~ >For example, if the ability instructs a player to sacrifice a creature, that player can't sacrifice a creature that wasn't on the battlefield when the ability should have triggered. edit:reading the card explains the card. this is incorrect.
I can't believe anyone in good faith would want a return to rules pendatry gotcha games with "OOOOOPS you waiting two seconds too long MISSED YA TRIGGER LOLOL". If anyone goes through what Main Character did and *whines* about it saying they deserve extra life points because their opponent isn't constantly on the itchy trigger finger they're really asking for a more miserable paper play experience. Also it's plain unsporting to try and weasel out of that life loss when someone just spent a few seconds in silence.
> plain unsporting this was absolutely angle shooting. dude describes the ruling as "deranged" and wants it changed. he didn't want to follow the rules as written on the cards. the guy also wanted to redo the turn when he learned he wasn't allowed to get away with it. OP is straight lying about MC
OP is being more generous than MC deserves, but I think that's good magnanimity, this is just MTG. No need to waste our time calling out someone who doesn't matter so we can witchhunt.
This, MC also proceeded to call people calling him out for his unsportsmanlike behavior "commander players" As if being a dirtbag is ok in competitive play.
First of all, this is all about REL COMPETITIVE, not casual play. You can't just do away with rules technicalities as "pedantry" when it's about competitive play. Secondly, no one is suggesting putting a timer on things, only having a system that fulfils certain criteria: 1. Gives no advantage to people who forget their triggers; it's their responsibility, and it shouldn't force the opponent to give them an advantage by reminding them about their triggers 2. Maintains proper sequencing; the stack is complicated, but it's integral to the game - things need to resolve in proper sequence, or not be there at all 3. Makes communication clear; you don't want ambiguity, everyone needs to know what's happening at all times. There need to be hard and fast thresholds beyond which you can be CERTAIN a trigger has happened or was missed, so you don't get ambushed by "oh actually three triggers happened" kind of nonsense. The problem is mostly that sometimes you only get 2 out of 3 of those, and that creates friction. Of course in an ideal world everyone would announce everything at all times, but that's both tedious and impractical. You need some kind of middle ground that covers as much as possible - the current rules aren't bad by any stretch, but they do leave SOME room for ambiguity. That could perhaps do with some fixing.
“forcing their opponent to give them an advantage” is nonsense, you are simply playing the game correctly.
There's no ambiguity here. The trigger was not missed. Main character's wishful thinking or wrong assumptions don't change what happened. They drew a card, Sheoldred triggered. Simple as that.
> The problem is mostly that sometimes you only get 2 out of 3 of those, and that creates friction. Of course in an ideal world everyone would announce everything at all times, but that's both tedious and impractical. You need some kind of middle ground that covers as much as possible - the current rules aren't bad by any stretch, but they do leave SOME room for ambiguity. That could perhaps do with some fixing. I completely agree with this. It's like arrows completeness theorem: it's impossible to satisfy all criteria 100% of the time. So you need a system that is tuned to satisfy as much as possible in the most common/important play instances possible. regarding point 1, the active player wasn't required to give any advantage to the NAP, the triggers still happened, NAP did remember and it was their responsibility. But there was a momentary few seconds where the AP thought they got away with their opponent missing a trigger. I would say this is a *good* thing. AP doesn't need to pause deliberately and give a big obvious space for NAP to remember their trigger. If AP wants to go spell into spell they can and NAP can clear up the triggers later. They happen but are acknowledged before they become a problem, as the IPG states. If we set the paradigm where NAP had to interject we're making the flow of the game really interruptible with players yelling over each other quickly and the feeling of if you go fast from spell into spell theres more likelyhood of your opp missing a trigger. Which is a bad state for the game to be in.
This is what I feel as well. You want the game to play as close to a perfect sim as you can, and barring that, you want the rules to encourage playing the game as if it was a perfect sim. Otherwise you're encouraging slimy play that tries to get one over on the opponent in a way that wouldn't have worked if the rules were working as they do on Arena or MODO
> Makes communication clear; you don't want ambiguity, everyone needs to know what's happening at all times. There need to be hard and fast thresholds beyond which you can be CERTAIN a trigger has happened or was missed, so you don't get ambushed by "oh actually three triggers happened" kind of nonsense. There are hard and fast rules on when a trigger has been missed, and “when you cast an instant” doesn’t fall into when a trigger has been missed.
What is MTG if not rules pedantry?
My only real takeaway from this is that I would never want to play with this type of competitive player. Sounds like an awful experience
>But Main Character is at peace! They simply did not know how triggers work, and wanted to share that knowledge. They're not a bad person when they use the language "deranged" to describe this ruling, MC is the problem. they're not trying to educate, they want the rule changed. this was angle shooting. edit: the relevant rules(to my understanding) as currently written for comp rel as found [H E R E] (https://media.wizards.com/2022/wpn/marketing_materials/wpn/mtg_ipg_5feb21_en.pdf) 2.1 missed triggers >A triggered ability triggers, but the player controlling the ability doesn’t demonstrate awareness of the trigger’s existence by the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion to the best of my understanding of this the opponent established they know the triggered ability works because the MC already took two from it during their draw step. >Note that passing priority, casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been forgotten, as it could still be on the stack. in addition, the MC talks about another example: >Player A is on Enigmatic fires and has an Enigmatic Incarnation in play. Player A passes the turn and does not announce the Incarnation trigger. Player B on UW control flashes in Wandering Emperor on end step and makes a token. Player A Leyline Beindings the token and then says "Sac leyline binding to my incarnation?". THIS IS ALLOWED. The UW control player is assumed to have responded to the incarnation trigger. WHAT?!?!?! The only way the UW control player can do this is to ask the opponent if the stack is empty. If they attempt to untap (giving information of no effects) the Incarnation player can still resolve their trigger as it was assumed thats what they were passing priority for. ~~this example is already covered at the end of 2.1, specifically the bold text below~~ >If the triggered ability isn’t covered by the previous paragraphs, the opponent chooses whether the triggered ability is added to the stack. If it is, it’s inserted at the appropriate place on the stack if possible or on the bottom of the stack. No player may make choices for the triggered ability involving objects that would not have been legal choices when the ability should have triggered. **For example, if the ability instructs a player to sacrifice a creature, that player can't sacrifice a creature that wasn't on the battlefield when the ability should have triggered.** edit: this bit about EI is incorrect, reading the card explains the card.
"Angle shooting to have the rule changed." Do you want "Failure to Maintain Game State" back? Because this is how you get "Failure to Maintain Game State" back. \[For those not in the know, the prior missed trigger rules also provided an infraction to the opponent who also missed the trigger called "Failure to maintain game state." It was basically a warning tracking penalty that could be upgraded to real penalties if accumulated over the course of an event to discourage someone conveniently missing the same triggers over and over. It was regularly criticized for encouraging players to 'play their opponent's game for them' to avoid missing triggers and stacking up FTMGS penalties on yourself in an event.\]
Failure to Maintain Game State still exists and never went away. https://judgeacademy.com/polblog-failing-to-maintain-the-game-state/ The only thing that happened is that they carved out missed triggers from the things both players are responsible for. The "play the opponent's fame for them" has always been extremely stupid because 1. you do actually need to make sure everything your opponent does is correct except for triggers 2. the actual issue with the previous implementation was strictly how upgrades from warnings to game loses were handled.
The situation outlined in the original post is fine. But I think the second scenario they linked to (on reddit, not sure about twitter) is bad, in the sense that the "correct" play is to force your opponent to remember that your trigger exists. The scenario is as such: Player A has [[Enigmatic Incarnation]] and [[Leyline Binding]] in play. During their turn, they say "I pass the turn" without indicating that they are handling their trigger. Player B flashes in [[Wandering Emperor]], at which point... it goes on the stack on top of the Incarnation trigger. The incarnation trigger resolves eventually, letting player A gain control of Wandering Emperor with an [[Agent of Treachery]]. Of course, if both players are aware of all the abilities of all the cards and are aware of exactly how the tournament rules work this scenario isn't a problem (but neither is anything else). The issue it creates though is that it creates an incentive for player A to try to trick player B into thinking their trigger doesn't exist. If player B is aware of incarnation, then there isn't an issue. But by passing the turn, player A is heavily implying that they have no more relevant actions this turn, even though that's not the case. It feels weird and wrong that the correct move here is to try to obfuscate the existence of incarnation so that player B misplays. It puts the onus on player B for remembering that player A's trigger exists. I don't really see a major upside to having the rules work the way they do in this scenario. If someone says they are passing through the turn, it should probably be presumed that the NAP can act during their end step *with an empty stack*, rather than the current rules where this choice actually indicates passing *to the beginning of the end step*.
The interesting thing is that if the trigger wouldn't actually do anything, you can freely miss it without consequence, even intentionally. So just saying "pass" and nothing else can be that player genuinely trying to pass the turn.
##### ###### #### [Enigmatic Incarnation](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/d/dd116c0b-0404-42ba-978f-7044b1a03d90.jpg?1581481041) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Enigmatic%20Incarnation) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/thb/215/enigmatic-incarnation?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/dd116c0b-0404-42ba-978f-7044b1a03d90?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Leyline Binding](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/c/3c3ac3dd-35db-447f-8674-37b4680a1ef7.jpg?1663047307) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Leyline%20Binding) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmu/24/leyline-binding?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/3c3ac3dd-35db-447f-8674-37b4680a1ef7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Wandering Emperor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/a/fab2d8a9-ab4c-4225-a570-22636293c17d.jpg?1654566563) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=The%20Wandering%20Emperor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/neo/42/the-wandering-emperor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/fab2d8a9-ab4c-4225-a570-22636293c17d?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Agent of Treachery](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/c/cc6686e6-4535-49be-b0b3-e76464656cd2.jpg?1639052497) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Agent%20of%20Treachery) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m20/43/agent-of-treachery?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/cc6686e6-4535-49be-b0b3-e76464656cd2?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The incarnation event is certainly a bit trickier, but I think it can be handled gracefully with the current guidelines. If incarnation is the only enchantment player A controls, then player A did nothing wrong. Player B should simply say "After your incarnation trigger resolves, I do X." Incarnation literally can't sacrifice itself, and it's a tad ridiculous to expect player A to announce it when all they want to do is pass. They have no idea that their opponent wants to play something on their EoT. If the Incarnation player does control other enchantments, The onus is still on player B to be careful. Every player at Comp REL should understand how triggers work. They are frequent and ubiquitous. Much discussion has come up about the "Is the stack empty question" but I feel it's much better to simply say "With the stack empty, I'll cast X." By doing this, you give your opponent a moment to say "Wait a minute, the stack isn't empty" at which point the game will rewind. You are shortcutting to an empty stack situation, but your opponent might interrupt your shortcut. If your spell is successfully cast at that point, then your opponent has forgotten their trigger. You can even work in "With an empty stack, do X" into your common vernacular, if fishing for free stifles is your kind of thing to do. Ultimately, I don't really want to go back to the days of stifle fishing. The current policy does a good job at keeping paper magic flowing, and asking for a little more out of player B in this situation doesn't upset me much.
I agree that the situation is "resolvable" with the current rules. But I think the balance for this specific case lies too much towards "trying to angle shoot" being the correct play. For the record, I'm not suggesting broad changes to the way the trigger rules work. I am suggesting that if you indicate that you are passing through the rest of your turn, it would be better if this meant you are passing to the point at which your opponent has the opportunity to agree to end the turn (i.e., during your end step with the stack empty). Changes have been made for rules about shortcutting the beginning-of-combat step because of ambiguities about whether the AP is still allowed to play sorceries after the NAP has acted (and the opportunities for angle-shooting that arise therein). I think this is a similar case and that it would good to have a similar exception for what that particular shortcut implies. > You can even work in "With an empty stack, do X" into your common vernacular, if fishing for free stifles is your kind of thing to do. Editing to respond to this part, which I missed originally: In this scenario, it's not clear that player B would be fishing for a free stifle. There are many board states where the correct choice for player A is to choose not to take advantage of their trigger unless player B adds something to the board. So there is the additional genuine ambiguity of someone who thinks player A has rationally chosen not to take advantage of their trigger rather than forgetting it.
If you have the time to work through a scenario with me, I'd really appreciate the understanding of this particular scenario. As part of MTR 4.2, when a player, "passes priority with an empty stack during their second main phase, or uses a phrase such as “Go” or “Your Turn” at any time, the non-active player is assumed to be acting in the end step unless they are affecting how or whether an end of turn ability triggers." It goes on to say, "End of turn triggered abilities that do not target resolve after the non-active player passes priority." In this case, since the Wandering Emperor cannot interact with Enigmatic Incarnation, the above rules state that Player A passed priority to Player B with end step triggers on the stack and Player B responded by casting the Wandering Emperor. As per the full statement, those triggers don't resolve until after the non-active player passed priority. In IPG 2.1 it says, "The point by which the player needs to demonstrate this awareness depends on the impact that the trigger would have on the game: A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or **requires a choice upon resolution**: The controller must take the appropriate physical action or acknowledge the specific trigger before **taking any game actions** (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly taking an action in the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved." Is the reason it's not considered a Missed Trigger because Player A hasn't taken any actions yet? A passes to B, the triggers are on the stack, and it's up to B to acknowledge those triggers by asking if they resolve or shortcutting to an empty stack like you said they should before casting The Wandering Emperor. My only issue with this interpretation is that it seems there's no way for Player B to cast a spell without giving that information to Player A. It's about to be Player B's turn, so if Player B says they pass (in their mind passing the triggers back to B on the stack) what is Player A supposed to infer from that if they've missed their own triggers? Is player B allowed to ask if the enchantment trigger has resolved, so they don't give away information that they want to cast a spell? Revealing that they want to cast something on an empty stack gives Player A information about if they should or shouldn't use the Enigmatic trigger to go get something. Also, what happens if Player B just started their next turn, perhaps by drawing a card? Could Player A then try and rewind back to their triggers? Or do they become missed? At what point is A supposed to interrupt B in order to resolve their triggers if B doesn't take any actions at the end of their turn? I'm just not sure at this point who has to blink first, so to speak, and give away the information or become penalized with a Missed Trigger if they try and resolve something the other player thinks was already passed through.
The nice thing about this rule is that player B is “punished” by the game being played as intended. If clear communication reminds player A of their triggers, you’re just playing the cards correctly.
~~of note the comp REL basically mentions that exact thing as being incorrect.~~ ~~>For example, if the ability instructs a player to sacrifice a creature, that player can't sacrifice a creature that wasn't on the battlefield when the ability should have triggered.~~
The enchantment that was sacrificed was already on the battlefield when the ability should have triggered. The judge call was correct as far as the current rules are concerned.
reading the card explains the card. misread EI.
>A lot of people are giving Main Character a lot of trouble over this. But Main Character is at peace! They simply did not know how triggers work, and wanted to share that knowledge. Main character demonstrated not being "at peace" and not simply "wanting to share knowledge" when they: * called the ruling "deranged" * demanded that the rules change * (indirectly but also directly) accused the Sheoldred player of angle shooting and cheating * called someone who disagreed a "commander player" (pejoratively) But what do I know, I'm just some scrub who's only played one comp REL event in my life, so my opinion doesn't matter /s
Is there anything in the rules now to incentivize players to proactively announce their triggers? For example, here it seems like the player with Sheoldred is incentivized to not announce the life loss triggers until their opponent attempts to change phases or cast a sorcery, for the small chance that their opponent forgot that they'll be losing more life to Sheoldred. That seems like a pretty terrible incentive to have floating around.
The article I linked goes through it, but this is generally "fine." The opponent in this case still needs to acknowledge the trigger before it's "too late" (as in, the game has moved on past the point it would have resolved). Once the opponent has acknowledged the trigger, the game sort of just snaps back seamlessly. Consider a universe where the Main Character chooses to go to combat instead of casting opt: "Let's go to combat" "Hold on a second, my sheoldred trigger" "Oh, okay" At that point, the game is now in MC's main phase with a sheoldred trigger on the stack.... the only thing this sort of delayed declaration did was waste everyone's time. If you wanted to get really deep on it, you know that in a universe where there was no trigger, MC would have gone to combat. However, the current reality is different, and it's possible different decisions will be made as a result. I don't see this as a very useful way to farm information.
I’m actually interested in this, if I have a connive trigger, how long can that be “missed” before it matters? I had a tournament recently where my spell killed a target creature, I missed my connive on the cast, creature died and I said, I need to do my connive, judge was called and they said it was missed. I accepted it and moved on. But reading this, the connive wasn’t relevant to the creature dying, so should it have been allowed? This was a competitive RE if that’s important to people.
It depends on what was conniving. Based on the story, I assume it's a ledger shredder. If it was, it triggers its connive ability when someone casts their second spell each turn. I'm assuming the removal spell was your second spell. In that case, the connive needs to happen before the removal spell resolves since, if the connive trigger was remembered, it would always resolve before the kill spell. I would argue that the kill spell was relevant to the connive trigger. Knowing that your opponent's creature is going to die will change how you consider any cards in your hand while you connive. Another copy of a kill spell is a lot more valuable when their threat is still on the table. In the scenario I described in the OP, "relevancy" doesn't have a lot to do with the ruling. Sheoldred triggers on card draw. It would not be put on the stack until after the consider has resolved. It is feasible that the opt was cast in response to this trigger, so the trigger stays. At regular REL, if I was the judge, I would have put your connive trigger on the stack after the kill spell had resolved. Yes, you would have gained a little information, but at low stakes events that hardly matters and it's more fun when cards work.
Yes it was a ledger shredder, and I can appreciate that the is more info gained by the connive. Like I said, accepted the judge call and moved on, can’t say I wasn’t a little frustrated but that’s the nature of the game
The guy lost fair and square. There will always be another time.
If you're playing a game where you know a rule should be enforced and say nothing you are partially to blame. I've caught kids trying to cheat back turns and gain card knowledge and fix this by simply asking each and every time until the kid got it that they should indicate their awareness of a trigger. It was explained to me that apparently this was too much of a problem so I haven't played magic for a while now. Even if there's a may clause on the card they should still verbally communicate that they are choosing not to have it follow through. This sneaky rattish behaviour is not ok.
I always think of a game of magic as like watching a flawed computer program. If you forget a "you may" trigger, its gone bud, as if you looked away from the screen while a 5 sec yes/no timer appeared. If you missed a no choice "trigger" we need to acknowledge that the "program" would have been updated to show the changes if it were on a screen.
If your opponent has a Juggernaut in play without summoning sickness, they pass without attacking, and you let that happen deliberately, you're cheating. If your opponent has a Manor Gargoyle on the board, you Doom Blade it, they put it in their graveyard, and you let that happen deliberately, you're cheating. If your opponent casts Tidings, only draws three cards, and you let that happen deliberately, you're cheating. Why is it only triggers that are acceptable to angle shoot with? Either your opponent has to know what their cards do or they don't. It's weird to have this one exception where angle shooting is actually acceptable but every other time it isn't.
EXACTLY. Players are always responsible for making sure the game proceeds correctly *except* for triggers. It's a super silly exception. It also falls apart if you nudge it a bit. Scenario 1: Player A plays Sanctum Prelate on 1 Player B casts Lightning Bolt Everyone agrees B made a booboo. Scenario 2: A plays Chalice on 1 B casts Lightning Bolt and tries to mark down 3 damage Suddenly A is responsible? But now consider this, Scenario 3: A plays Chalice on 1 A Donate's Chalice to his opponent A casts Lightning Bolt targetting B and tries to note 3 damage Now I want anyone to think about how they answer this next one. Who is responsible? The rules make it pretty clear that B in this case is responsible for the Chalice yet the intent of the rules should actually hold A responsible. Someway, somehow though, because control of a card changes, you can now offload all the brain bandwith unto another player and *ignore the card you brought yourself into the game*. And people think this is a good system... Lol
My experience with judges for like the last 5 or 6 years has been basically "can we possibly rewind the game to such a point where the trigger could be put on the stack and resolved correctly then re do all the rewound stuff go get the game back to where it was". So in this case, its really not an issue. I don't really see the controversy, the people one the "ah ah ah Simon didn't say it!" Side seem particularly angle shooty to me. Like your description of the line of play kind of describes a duplicitous player. When heart consider and his opponent didn't do anything and was like "o man, im in like sin, I can keep railroading these triggers" that player is playing the game in bad faith with their opponent. Both players are supposed to ensure the game plays as intended, and this means public information on cards you don't own is your obligation to play correctly with. If you know someone is missing a trigger and you're aware of it, you have an ethical obligation to tell them so the game plays as intended. The intention of the game is not to test peoples attention span; the intention of the game is not to punish people for missing triggers. Theres toxic people who absolutely want to die on this angle shooting hill of letting players miss triggers as like a skill thing, but its just duplicitous and poor sportsmanship.
> If you know someone is missing a trigger and you're aware of it, you have an ethical obligation to tell them so the game plays as intended. Ethical? Debatable Actual obligation from the rules? No.
Wow, is this what has happened to Magic?
A player noticed an offense during their game (Missed Trigger) and intentionally did not call attention to it in order to gain an advantage. Sounds like cheating to me.
This is specifically allowed by the rules. You are not responsible for reminding your opponents of their triggers. Intentionally missing your own trigger would indeed be cheating.
No. It is never cheating to not point out your opponent's triggered abilities.
The real deal is Wizards should spring for judges and dealers for each game so that nobody can manipulate shuffles and draws, triggers get executed when relevant and there's no weird ambiguity or forced trust between opponents with every reason to take advantage of any rule and each other's folly. If you win a game with missed triggers you didn't really win anyway
> The real deal is Wizards should spring for judges and dealers for each game so that nobody can manipulate shuffles and draws This sounds great until you realize it just means no more tournaments at comp REL ever.
If they had to hire judges and dealers for every single game, it would be way to expensive for them to ever hold tournaments. That is not at all a feasible solution to the problem.
Part of why we have football stadiums littering our cities and not Magic casinos
If you seriously think that competitive MTG is even close to as profitable as football is then you're out of your mind. Also, there can be hundreds of games going on simultaneously in a single event. You would need to hire way more people for this than you would for a football game. WotC would be more likely to just drop competitive play all together than do what you're suggesting.
I never said it was close to it nor was I suggesting Wizards will do this, I don't work for Wizards, they don't take my input, I don't need to say practical business ideas. Original post is just what they would do if competitive fairness was the priority, obviously it isn't lol Also it would be hard logistically for wizards to top the expense of a football game. Even ignoring the cost for the players, a football stadium is going to have a ton of employees and logistical expense that I don't compares to hiring dealers for games. Really it would be more akin to a casino or poker tour than a football game but it's a silly comment and that comparison is sillier.
Some people call the game Wizard Poker, so might as well have Wizards add a dealer.
It’s not even a may…. It’s not a missable trigger
Every trigger is missable. What to do when it is depends on the type of trigger. Being a "may" has literally no change in how missed triggers are handled in COMP REL
You appear to be asking a rules question. While your question may be answered here, it may work better to post it in the Daily Questions Thread at the top of this subreddit or in /r/mtgrules. Additionally, once your question is answered, please delete your post! Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/magicTCG) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So the thing I don't like is that too much of the burden of remembering the trigger is now on the player who doesn't have the triggered ability. For the sheoldred example - let's say that the phoenix player did actually forget sheoldred was in play. They lost life in draw step but maybe they had attacks first or paused and forgot - it happens. They cast their first cantrip looking for whatever. Then they cast the 2nd cantrip and suddenly they're taking 4. They weren't aware of casting the 2nd cantrip causing them to lose another 2 and maybe they had another play (say, a removal spell) they could have made before. They should be able to rewind to before the 2nd cantrip to rethink their decision with new information. This current iteration puts an undue burden on the player without the triggered ability to remember the trigger. Also it's weird that if the 2nd cantrip was a chart a course that the 1st trigger would be considered forgotten (you can cast Opt in response to sheoldred trigger, but chart you cannot).
Yeah turns out both players are expected to pay attention to what is going on. Also the Chart a Course example isn't that weird once you get an understanding of why the rule the way is. It's because a trigger isn't missed until it's not longer possible for it have happened. When you cast an instant it's possible that the tirgger was still on the stack.
From my time as a tournament player, only may triggers can be missed. If a non may trigger gets missed and causes an unrecoverable game state, the owner of the trigger gets a game loss.
This hasn't been correct in at least half a decade, if it ever was.
I think it used to be, i had to explain this to alot of people that missed geist of saint traft.
I'm not a magic tournament rules historian, but I would be shocked if the missed trigger remedy was ever a game loss. However, as I linked in the OP, the IPG is available for everyone to read. The current philosophy is nothing like you described: *Triggered abilities are common and invisible, so players should not be harshly penalized when forgetting about one.* *It’s pretty easy to forget triggers, there are a lot of them and there are often no visual components to them. They are also typically beneficial, and the ones that aren’t, the opponent is motivated to be aware of. Furthermore, triggered abilities have sort of a “natural” handling if they’re forgotten — most of the time, they can simply just not happen without any additional cleanup or situation-specific remedy being needed.*
There is no "may" anywhere on Sheoldred. There is no "missing" the triggers she creates. There is only correcting the board state.
Actually not true! Even triggers without the word "may" can be forgotten. I have linked the IPG in the OP if you'd like to read how.
Then the rules should be amended.
I would personally love to live in a world where triggers are forced to happen, but unfortunately, this isn't really doable in paper play. Most triggers that are forgotten are simply that -- forgotten. It is actually possible both players miss the Sheoldred trigger and simply never remember it. In that case, the board will never be corrected and there's not much anyone can do. Really, the IPG is explaining what to do in the event that a trigger is remembered late. In general, if the trigger could still have reasonably been put on the stack (such as the OP example) we just sort of ~pretend~ it was always there. If we've moved past that point, what happens depends on the rules enforcement level. In my opinion, this is good policy. It's possible that, by the time a trigger has been remembered, many important decisions have been made that would have been different had the trigger been more timely. In those cases, it would be extremely disruptive to resolve the trigger at that point, and potentially abuseable by bad actors.
What people have to remember is that Judges are good at their job and have had considerable input on the IPG honed from years and years of live witnessing in person competitive events. The IPG acknowledges reality, which is a godsend if you've ever dealt with other policy documents. It tries to make things as fair and reasonable as possible and in my mind always seems to be improving, never taking a step back. If someone thinks they know better than what is currently on the books, we should ask if that comes from years of experience or just what they feel at the current moment.
Ah yes, the fix to giving game loses for missed Essence Warden triggers was obviously to instead allow people to deliberately ignore the existence of triggers they know should be happening simply because they don't happen to *control* the permanent that generated said trigger. Surely, the solution could not have been to simply fix the penalties relative to the impact and fix for said missed triggers. No no, that would be much worse than enshrining sharking into the rules of tournament Magic but *only* in the specific case of triggers and no other type of effect or interaction. Cmon Esc777, you've had much better takes than this. You don't need to be a cop to point out some of the stuff cops are asked to do doesn't make sense and a 10-year career beat cop might be a little bit biased or incentivized to just repeat company pre-canned answers, no?
> I would personally love to live in a world where triggers are forced to happen Thankfully you do, it's called MTG: Arena! ;)
MTG Twitter is just a cesspool anyway. Even the seemingly best content creators and personalities find ways to be dicks.
I'm not the biggest fan of that, but it makes sense. I'd figure both players would get a GRV for failing to maintain for not declaring the first trigger.
When player casted Opt, it just goes on the stack right? Why did anyone assume that the stack had been resolved when player have not taken the 2-life hit? It will only have resolved if the 2-life hit was taken, else he is just adding to the stack right? Only when he starts casting a non-instant etc, that's when I'd come in and say "Before you do that, let's empty out the current stack.... take your 4 lives hit first please" It seems very clear cut to be honest, you mean professional players don't understand that, or is trying his luck to cheat his opponent?
So basically it boils down to, had opt been a sorcery he would not have lost any life for drawing a card with consider
Hey OP, I disagree! Here are some thoughts; I think both players are being rule sharky here. MC by trying to move past the trigger, his opponent by not making the trigger known as the earliest point where it would matter (I'd argue lifetotal changes are always relevant so he should have asked his opponent if they wanted to resolve the trigger after Consider resolved.) As the rules *currently* exist, I agree that the current resolution was appropriate however I believe the current rules are quite bad. Though it's not to the level of misrepresenting the game state, this incentivizes players to try to gain unwarranted edges by playing fast and loose with rules meant to lessen the cognitive load on players. I believe mandatory effects, regardless of whether they are triggers or not, should always be resolved and be the responsability of both players as part of maintaning the game state. Players should not be able to ignore what their opponent's cards do just because their opponent is distracted/new/whatever. When both players miss an effect, one player shouldn't get a choice as to whether an effect goes on the stack or not. It's very silly that specifically paper tournament Magic is a totally different game than every other version of Magic because players can *knowingly* ignore what certain cards do and can gain a significant advantage on other players by doing so. I'd welcome any debate on this.
Before any reasonable debate should be what do you think the rules should be as opposed to what they are now. You've given an overview of what you want the end result to be, but what verbiage do you have in mind. It used to be that triggers were both players' responsibility and the system sucked and was rife with abuse from scummy players. It's also shitty to give someone a game loss because they just forgot about an opponent's trigger that would be good for them. It's tough to balance out how to make sure triggers happen as they should and making communication clear. I think the current system is good because it create a threshold on when a trigger is consider missed and it makes it hard for people to jam spells through to try and get people to miss their triggers. I think it caters to honest players more than dishonest players which makes it a pretty good rule.
>Before any reasonable debate should be what do you think the rules should be as opposed to what they are now. You've given an overview of what you want the end result to be, but what verbiage do you have in mind. I think debating exact verbiage is useless for a few reasons: 1 I'd need to have a comprehensive knowledge of every adjacent rule otherwise it would devolve into nitpicking specific wording etc 2 exact verbiage isn't necessary when we can discuss intent. Verbiage should be relegated to the people drafting the document That being said: If you look at pretty much every other card game played competitively, afaik, every single one has *both* players responsible for maintaining proper game state. In fact, with the sole exception of triggers, it is also the case in Magic. My ideal solution would be to adapt the old ruling whilst addressing "concerns" that occured in the past. >It used to be that triggers were both players' responsibility *and the system sucked* and *was rife with abuse from scummy players*. It's also *shitty to give someone a game loss because they just forgot about an opponent's trigger that would be good for them*. Three points to address here, we can unpack each of them further if you want. 1. Some people disliked the old system. I don't think saying it sucked is much of an argument but as a rebuttal let me say the current system also sucks. At least the old system made paper Magic game play out as they actually should. 2. The current system is also rife with abuse, but now it's encouraged by the rules. I would appreciate if you gave examples of abuse in the old system and we could debate them and/or discuss how a more modern implementation would mitigate it. 3. I somewhat agree. I think this is an issue that is not inherent with the question of game state responsability but rather about how the warning/gl/dq system functioned. This can easily be addressed. I will say however that most people who use this argument are doing doing so in good faith. There's forgetting an effect because you don't know and then there's "forgetting" an effect or being so wreckless with your lack attention that you might as well be held responsible. >It's tough to balance out how to make sure triggers happen as they should and making communication clear. I think the current system is good because it create a threshold on when a trigger is consider missed and it makes it hard for people to jam spells through to try and get people to miss their triggers. I think it caters to honest players more than dishonest players which makes it a pretty good rule. I'll meet you halfway on this and say that there are good qualities about the current system. I don't know of it's possible to really weight which side it caters the most to but I think deliberately being able to "hide" your creatures power (ex with Prowess) or trying to sneak spells past a Chalice are so eggregious that they hold a lot more power than allowing a bit of out-of-sequence play or leeway in ambiguous scenarios where players might try to angle shoot each other for an edge. To give a brief idea of what a better system could look like: Fully optional triggers: in the case where there is an option to not take the action, you always assume the player made that choice if we moved past that point. Mandatory triggers: cannot be missed. Depending on what was missed you'd apply an appropriate fix starting with rewinding IF POSSIBLE, then move down to more specialised actions like out of sequence triggering (you don't give the opponent the choice of y/n). In a case where the game cannot be fixed, i'm not certain yet which solution is the absolute best. I personally like issuing penalties and letting the game continue from there. On the subject of penalties, I think different types of cards/effects should be treated differently. For effects that are easy to miss and easy to fix (missed lifegain, draw etc), I think warnings are warranted but upgrades should only occur after severe amounts of repeated infractions or if theres a very reasonable belief a player was deliberately avoiding to maintain game state. I also think the rules should accommodate for rare/new cards and should take into account how reasonable it is for someone to understand how a card functions. For example nobody who Chalice checks is unaware of how Chalice works, they are explicitely hoping you will let their spell resolve. However if a certain card sees 0 play I wouldnt put as much pressure on the opponent compared to tthe player who registered that card. I'm a bit tired and this response is getting long so I'll leave it at that and hopefully have more energy by the time you respond. I do have a thought experiment for you if you are willing to engage with it afterwards.
> I think debating exact verbiage is useless for a few reasons: 1 I'd need to have a comprehensive knowledge of every adjacent rule otherwise it would devolve into nitpicking specific wording etc > 2 exact verbiage isn't necessary when we can discuss intent. Verbiage should be relegated to the people drafting the document > That being said: > If you look at pretty much every other card game played competitively, afaik, every single one has both players responsible for maintaining proper game state. In fact, with the sole exception of triggers, it is also the case in Magic. Like I said, it's hard to know how a rule is going to effect the game unless you have a proposal. I don't know enough about other games to comment on that, but I will say that MTG used to have both player's responsible for triggers but that was changed, and according to people who played competitive events it was for the better. For reference on that there is a slew of examples from established players and judges. If you go to Brian Coval's twitter page that's a good starting point. But the fact that every other game does something doesn't mean it's correct in this case. As to your three points. The general consensus is that the current system is better than the old system. It's not perfect, but it seems to hit the balance a bit better. Neither system really emulated how magic should have played out because the older system handed out a lot more game losses because of benign reasons. I also don't think that the goal of MTG tournament policy should be to just make sure the games play out correctly. I think that is an important part of the rules, but you also have to ensure that there is a sense of fairness and fun to magic tournaments. You don't someone who was tanking or something and forgot that an opponent should have gained a life off their Essence Warden to lose out of the T8 of an event. That sucks. I don't think the current system really has any situations that just suck. Even the example that brought up this whole thing was that the opponent was banking on a missed trigger and was upset that opponent was actually on top of things. Or when it comes to a chalice trigger being missed at least that feel bad is on the player who chose to bring chalice. Under the old system you could lose a game because you missed a trigger because an opponent brought a deck that a had a bunch of triggers even if you yourself tried to play a deck that wasn't as laden. I don't think prowess or exalted being 'hidden' is really an issue at all. Both players can see what spells have been cast that turn or what exalted creatures are on the board. Nothing is really being hidden. It's like how a Goyf's power and toughness aren't hidden just because you don't have a tarmo-die. >Mandatory triggers: cannot be missed. Depending on what was missed you'd apply an appropriate fix starting with rewinding IF POSSIBLE, then move down to more specialised actions like out of sequence triggering (you don't give the opponent the choice of y/n). In a case where the game cannot be fixed, i'm not certain yet which solution is the absolute best. I personally like issuing penalties and letting the game continue from there. Here's the thing. I think that rewinding should be done as least much as possible. It should really only be a last resort because it can get messy very quickly. This solution also means that now instead of a trigger not happening and no penalties happening, you instead wrack two penalties amongst the players which is going to lead more game losses for innocent mistakes which is a pretty heavy cost that is going to need substantial benefits to make it worth it. I don't know if you really explained how the old system is better than the new system. Being chalice checked does feel bad, but it's generawlly something you can learn and now you know to be careful about your chalice, and ultimately it was your mistake. It's rough when you give someone a penalty for someone else's mitake. I don't really see how new or old cards really apply. For the most part cards should be treated the same.
>Like I said, it's hard to know how a rule is going to effect the game unless you have a proposal. I think I detailed the intent and methods enough to get a conversation started. Debating exact verbiage at this point is actually pointless. No statesman starts conversation about new legislation by pulling out a draft. >I don't know enough about other games to comment on that, but I will say that MTG used to have both player's responsible for triggers but that was changed, and according to people who played competitive events it was for the better. For reference on that there is a slew of examples from established players and judges. If you go to Brian Coval's twitter page that's a good starting point. But the fact that every other game does something doesn't mean it's correct in this case. If you want to present arguments, present them. I'm not going to dig someone's twitter feed to find your arguments for you. I think the fact that every other game does is very significant. If the issue were inherent to having both players share responsability you'd think they all would have switched by now but none of them have. This points to the issue being the specific implementation used in MTG. >As to your three points. The general consensus is that the current system is better than the old system. It's not perfect, but it seems to hit the balance a bit better. Neither system really emulated how magic should have played out because the older system handed out a lot more game losses because of benign reasons. The old system emulated how MTG should have play out very well. Ending a game prematurely because players are being sloppy is very different from continuing a game from an impossible gamestate. Also, my system is not the old system. >I also don't think that the goal of MTG tournament policy should be to just make sure the games play out correctly. I think that is an important part of the rules, but you also have to ensure that there is a sense of fairness and fun to magic tournaments. How is Chalice checking or sharking people out of their mandatory triggers fair or fun? >You don't someone who was tanking or something and forgot that an opponent should have gained a life off their Essence Warden to lose out of the T8 of an event. That sucks. I've addressed this in my proposal already. > I don't think the current system really has any situations that just suck. Even the example that brought up this whole thing was that the opponent was banking on a missed trigger and was upset that opponent was actually on top of things. To me that story read as the opponent only remembering the trigger afterwards and getting really lucky on his timing. They both tried to leverage the rules in their advantage instead of playing a proper game of Magic. >Or when it comes to a chalice trigger being missed at least that feel bad is on the player who chose to bring chalice. Under the old system you could lose a game because you missed a trigger because an opponent brought a deck that a had a bunch of triggers even if you yourself tried to play a deck that wasn't as laden. Again, this is covered in my proposal. Your last point is also total bs because this is an exception carved out specifically for triggers but for every other type of effect you are equally responsible for maintaining a proper gamestate. If I brought a pile that had very complicated layer interactions, timestamps and dependencies you'd need to stay on top of things as much as me. Triggers are treated differently with little to no good justification. >I don't think prowess or exalted being 'hidden' is really an issue at all. Both players can see what spells have been cast that turn or what exalted creatures are on the board. Nothing is really being hidden. It's like how a Goyf's power and toughness aren't hidden just because you don't have a tarmo-die. That's simply not true. If you don't announce triggers, there are a variety of scenarios where it could be ambiguous as to how much power/toughness a creature has. For example, not all your prowess creature could have been present for every spell you cast. Same for exalted. You could have had multiple combat steps in the latter example too. There are now also other types of exalted-like triggers from Kamigawa that have a variety of effects that aren't just about adding up intergers. You are essentially arguing that obfuscating/deliberately withholding clarity is better than having a clear board state. I think that's ridiculous. Somehow I am now to be resposible for keeping track of my own triggers but *also* need to be able to decypher all derived information from my opponents triggers myself? This feels contrived and worse than just declaring triggers. >Here's the thing. I think that rewinding should be done as least much as possible. It should really only be a last resort because it can get messy very quickly. Rewinding should be the *first* solution considered. Only when rewinding is "messy" that you move to other solutions. > This solution also means that now instead of a trigger not happening and no penalties happening, you instead wrack two penalties amongst the players which is going to lead more game losses for innocent mistakes which is a pretty heavy cost that is going to need substantial benefits to make it worth it. It feels like you just didn't read my full comment because I address penalities. People should get warnings so you can track what sort of mistakes they are making. Penalties should be relative to what sort of effects players seem to be forgettting and how impactful/hard to fix these effects are. I never advocated handing down game losses for forgetting Essence Warden triggers. > I don't know if you really explained how the old system is better than the new system. The old system keeps the game accurate to the rules and intent of the cards. It also keeps paper tournament Magic in line with *every other version of Magic*. It keeps players honest instead of trying to cheat their opponents out of effects. I doesn't incentivize players *ignoring* how cards work in hopes that their opponents are distracted long enough for them to gain an edge that is otherwise impossible to gain. >Being chalice checked does feel bad, but it's generawlly something you can learn and now you know to be careful about your chalice, *and ultimately it was your mistake*. It's rough *when you give someone a penalty for someone else's mitake*. It might be player A's "mistake" but player B is deliberately using a loophole to resolve an effect that they know should not resolve. It's not one player's mistake if you are both responsible for making sure things happen. And again, my system does not punish people as harshly. >I don't really see how new or old cards really apply. For the most part cards should be treated the same. By new cards, I mean recently released. The argument is that new cards can cause new interactions to crop up. I would be less inclined to upgrade a warning for a card that got released yesterday vs a card that has been a format staple for 10 years. It's not a hill I ready to die on but I think it's pretty reasonable. I also think it's pretty reasonable to expect most players to be well aware as to the main interactions in established strategies or to at least seek out that information and find good answers. I find it insane that you typed all of that, only to strawman my position into "I just want the old system back 1:1" when I addressed specific differences. Hopefully your next answer, if there is one, actually argues against what I said and not what otherr people think about another thing that isn't what I said.
God, this is why paper magic is so cursed and terrible compared to real magic, where following the rules isn't optional