Questing about acknowledgement of a trigger

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
If I cast Silverblade Palladin, put Palladin on top of a creature and set those creatures aside does that count as visually acknowledging that they are paired? The only example I could fine on Visual Acknowledgement is if you cast a spell that creates a token, pass the turn and then get the token thats ok.

Also if my opponent is aware that I think both creatures are paired but he doesnt say anything until it becomes relevent ( I attack and say double strike damage) what happens? 

I would love to get a judge's ruling on this. 
Visual acknowledgement seems to be somewhat counter to the way the game works.
If I tap more mana than I need to cast a spell, I am required to say that I have floating mana.
What you say is more important than what you mean in many circumstances as well.
You could be creating a stack of your own creatures for any reason. Maybe you were counting them for Blasphemous Act or Wayfaring Temple. Without saying what you were doing it for, why should anyone trust that you did it? 

If I have a creature that says target player skips their next combat phase when it enters the battlefield, and I play it and point at someone, I wouldn't expect that to fly as me having targeted them.

I'm no judge, just my opinion. 
If I cast Silverblade Palladin, put Palladin on top of a creature and set those creatures aside does that count as visually acknowledging that they are paired?

That seems a reasonable way to demonstrate awareness of the trigger, provided you're not in the habit of stacking unpaired creatures together. I'd still recommend saying something, but what you described should suffice to show that they are paired, much like it would work to put an aura physically on a creature to demonstrate which creature you are playing it on.
Also if my opponent is aware that I think both creatures are paired but he doesnt say anything until it becomes relevent ( I attack and say double strike damage) what happens?

Call a judge.
I need to make sure this is a deffinant way to demonstrate awareness. I observed a similar game where this happened, no judge was call but im curious of where a visual demonstration is ok and where its not. 
I need to make sure this is a deffinant way to demonstrate awareness.

Then talk to the specific judge at your specific event. I cannot guarantee that every judge will rule the same way.

I need to make sure this is a deffinant way to demonstrate awareness. I observed a similar game where this happened, no judge was call but im curious of where a visual demonstration is ok and where its not. 



The definite way is to tell your opponent you have paired them.  There may be a more ambiguous way that is still somehow legalwithin the rules though. If you are truly attemptiing to ensure your opponent is aware, then stating it is the obvious answer. If you have other intentions, then using all loopholes available should suit your purpose. 
Well I talked to two judges (both level one) and they gave me different rulings. I'm looking for someone a bit higher up to clear the water.
I need to make sure this is a deffinant way to demonstrate awareness. I observed a similar game where this happened, no judge was call but im curious of where a visual demonstration is ok and where its not. 



The definite way is to tell your opponent you have paired them.  There may be a more ambiguous way that is still somehow legalwithin the rules though. If you are truly attemptiing to ensure your opponent is aware, then stating it is the obvious answer. If you have other intentions, then using all loopholes available should suit your purpose. 

He wasnt cheating he just assumed his opponent knew, again the question isnt how best to state when the trigger is happening, its when is a visual acknowledgment ok and when isnt it
I need to make sure this is a deffinant way to demonstrate awareness. I observed a similar game where this happened, no judge was call but im curious of where a visual demonstration is ok and where its not. 



The definite way is to tell your opponent you have paired them.  There may be a more ambiguous way that is still somehow legalwithin the rules though. If you are truly attemptiing to ensure your opponent is aware, then stating it is the obvious answer. If you have other intentions, then using all loopholes available should suit your purpose. 

He wasnt cheating he just assumed his opponent knew, again the question isnt how best to state when the trigger is happening, its when is a visual acknowledgment ok and when isnt it

It doesn't sound like cheating.  It just doesn't sound like the player's intent is to be certain that his opponent knowshe paired the 2 creatures.  Again, the best way to ensure triggers are clear is to state them. The rules may allow something else, but it doesn't change what would be best.
Is there some reason why you couldn't just tell your opponent that you're pairing those creatures? Visual representation is all well and good, but a verbal announcement makes things completely unambiguous.

Even if you're for some reason unwilling to do it every time, you can just do it the first time and tell your opponent that this is how you'll be representing pairing your creatures. If he has a problem with that, let him speak up.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

If I cast Silverblade Palladin, put Palladin on top of a creature and set those creatures aside does that count as visually acknowledging that they are paired?

You have to announce the trigger, and you must somehow indicate which creatures (if any) get paired on resolution, but is there really a requirement for visually demonstrate paired creatures?

(If someone wants to, that's obviously fine and dandy, but is there a requirement to?)

...is there really a requirement for visually demonstrate paired creatures?



Closest I'm aware of in the rules is that the game state must be clear.  Visually representing it would be nice, but neither the CR nor the Tourny Rules specify how to represent Soul Bound pairs and I've never heard of a standardized way.  Stacking the two Bound creatures seems like a good way, but it may also get your opponent's knickers in a twist since you would be obscuring a card and that could be construed as attempting to hide it, or at least cause the opponent to mistake the card for an Aura.

Best plan would be to either ask the Judge/Organizer how they want it handled before the tournement starts, or take this to the general forums and ask how others display bound pair and try to establish a standard method of displaying the Bond.
I'm gonna bring up another example from Melissa De Tora: 

I have a Soul Warden in play. My opponent plays a creature. I nod my head and write plus one life on my life pad. I said nothing, but it's clear that I was aware that the trigger happened.

This is an acceptable form of physical trigger awareness, which brings me back to my question of when is it ok and when isnt it.

Sometimes players forget to mention a tigger but stlll acknowledge it happened. Although it may be more confusing for an opponent does that make it an illegal play? 

 
The Soul Warden example is different because by marking that you gained a life, you are obviously acknowledging that the trigger happened. There's no other explanation for why you would have updated your life total. Soulbond doesn't say "put this creature next to another one you control on the table", so just setting it on top of another creature doesn't necessarily mean that you're pairing them. Maybe you're playing at a small table and already have a lot of creatures out.
Rules Advisor
I'm gonna bring up another example from Melissa De Tora: 

I have a Soul Warden in play. My opponent plays a creature. I nod my head and write plus one life on my life pad. I said nothing, but it's clear that I was aware that the trigger happened.

This is an acceptable form of physical trigger awareness, which brings me back to my question of when is it ok and when isnt it.

Sometimes players forget to mention a tigger but stlll acknowledge it happened. Although it may be more confusing for an opponent does that make it an illegal play? 

 



I think the key point in this senario is that the effect isn't a may effect. May effects are optional, whereas Soul Warden's effect isn't optional.
Something you don't have a choice in shouldn't need verbal acknowledgement, whereas something you do should. 

I think the key point in this senario is that the effect isn't a may effect.

No, not really. At competitive/professional, all triggers require you to demonstrate awareness of the trigger for it to not be considered "missed". The demonstration of awareness need not be verbal though (after all, players don't always speak a common language).
I'm not a judge at all, so I don't claim any authority here. But the answer to this question depends on the level of play.

Kitchen table/playing "at home": You have to resolve it amongst yourselves. It's fine to say that they're paired and it's fine to say you missed your chance. Judges have no say here, and while citing examples from higher levels of play can set a good precedent, it's more likely to just upset your friends.

FNM/Casual/Regular REL: You and your opponent are equally at fault for not effectively communicating what happened. If a judge is called, he will look at the facts and, if appropriate, administer a penalty.

Competitive+: You need to "demonstrate awareness" of the trigger. If the judge rules that it wasn't clear you understood that the soulbond ability triggered, he's going to rule that the creatures aren't paired.

I guess the most important takeaway here is that it's subjective. One judge might think it's obvious that you paired the creatures, while another might be concerned that you'd be able to take advantage of the lack of clarity. You asked if placing the creatures next to each other is definitively demonstrating your awareness: to this, I say no. I could reasonably doubt that you are aware of the trigger in this case.
This becomes a problem when, after not attacking because you thought your opponent's blockers had double-strike, they play onother creature and announce that they are soulbounding it to the paladin.


This is an acceptable form of physical trigger awareness

Yes, but it's not an acceptable form of life change awarness.

From the Tournament Rules, emphasis mine:
A change in a player’s life total should be accompanied by a verbal announcement by that player of the new life total.

When I have a number of identical tokens, I often stack them as you describe. It's not unambiguous. The loosest behaviour I'd dare: The first time you pair something, be explicit, then subsequent pairings can be implied from you repeating the same behaviour.



Not a judge but at competitive REL I would say visual acknowledgement is not enough to indicate pairing (unless you say that it is and opponent agrees, as ikegami says).
Sign In to post comments