Gatecrash Soiler, Beginning of Combat triggers and shortcuts

40 posts / 0 new
Last post
The new Gatecrash card, Angelic Skirmisher has an ability that triggers at the beginning of combat.  It is my understanding that 'I'm going to attack' and similar is a shortcut for 'I will pass priority until the declare attackers step', which is after the Angelic Skirmisher would trigger.  Is using this shortcut going to cause me to miss the trigger, or after my opponent says 'Go ahead', could I then say 'Angelic Skirmisher triggers and I choose ...' before declaring?  Would I have to adjust my shortcut proposal somehow to avoid missing the trigger?

Cheers
modify the shortcut to "entering combat, any responses?"
any responses would still be in your main phase in that case, otherwise you move to the "begin of combat" step and put the trigger on the stack
proud member of the 2011 community team
"OK, beginning of combat?"
"Yep, Im done"
"OK, Angel triggers, response?"
"None"
"I choose..."

Thats how it would go.

~ Tim      
I am Blue/White Reached DCI Rating 1800 on 28/10/11. :D
Sig
56287226 wrote:
190106923 wrote:
Not bad. But what happens flavor wise when one kamahl kills the other one?
Zis iz a sign uf deep psychological troma, buried in zer subconscious mind. By keelink himzelf, Kamahl iz physically expressink hiz feelinks uf self-disgust ova hiz desire for hiz muzzer. [/GermanPsychologistVoice]
56957928 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
That makes no sense to me. If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed? ~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch. YAY COLOR IDENTITY
56287226 wrote:
56888618 wrote:
Is algebra really that difficult?
Survey says yes.
56883218 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
56287226 wrote:
56735468 wrote:
And no judge will ever give you a game loss for playing snow covered lands.
I now have a new goal in life. ;)
Just get in the habit of announcing combat regardless of triggers.  It's as simple as saying, "Combat."  See, I've found that bypassing the start of combat and jumping straight to declaring attackers has screwed me over quite a bit by opponents backing the game up and doing something to the creature I intended to attack with, and then I have to restrategize.  It's the same thing as announcing the intended target of an Oblivion Ring before the enchantment resolves, or announcing what you want your Clone to be before it resolves: that kind of information is very valuable to your opponents, and forcing them to think first could result in misplays.  If your opponent says, "Okay" or "Go ahead" after you've clearly said "Combat," then they've passed priority and you can move onto declaring attackers.  Then they won't be able to back the game up before you declared attackers because you already gave them the chance.  If there are no triggers on the board, no activated abilities that could alter combat in any way, or no untapped mana, I might shortcut straight to, "Swing with whosits," but I don't do that often.

As to how this would work with the Angel, I'd just go, "Combat, Angel triggers."

Rules Advisor

modify the shortcut to "entering combat, any responses?"
any responses would still be in your main phase in that case, otherwise you move to the "begin of combat" step and put the trigger on the stack

"OK, beginning of combat?"
"Yep, Im done"
"OK, Angel triggers, response?"
"None"
"I choose..."

Thats how it would go.

~ Tim      

Thanks, I will have to start using 'Combat?' rather than 'I'm going to attack' 

Just get in the habit of announcing combat regardless of triggers.

I always announce combat, but my question was whether the shortcut 'I'm going to attack' was bi-passing the beginning of combat phase where the angel should trigger.  I haven't played with beginning of combat triggers before and now I know I will start using 'combat?' instead.

I also typed poorly regarding the Angelic Skirmisher triggers.  That was not really the meat and potatoes of my question so I put little thought into it.  I would not actually announce my choice until resolution there either.   

Cheers
Thanks, I will have to start using 'Combat?' rather than 'I'm going to attack'


You may find that that may not be very effective. There is no distinction made by the TR between those two statements.

A statement such as "I'm ready for combat" or "Declare attackers?" offers to keep passing priority
until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting
then unless they specify otherwise. 

You will need to either be very clear that you are not using this conventional shortcut or acknowledge any Beggining of Combat triggers simultaneously with your move to combat.

Personally, I would avoid all possible confusion and just acknowledge my Beginning of Combat triggers instead of announcing a move to combat.
Thanks, I will have to start using 'Combat?' rather than 'I'm going to attack'


You may find that that may not be very effective. There is no distinction made by the TR between those two statements.

A statement such as "I'm ready for combat" or "Declare attackers?" offers to keep passing priority
until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting
then unless they specify otherwise. 

You will need to either be very clear that you are not using this conventional shortcut or acknowledge any Beggining of Combat triggers simultaneously with your move to combat.

Personally, I would avoid all possible confusion and just acknowledge my Beginning of Combat triggers instead of announcing a move to combat.


That wouldnt be a problem, since the OP was worried about missing a trigger during the beginning of combat step by accidentally skipping right to the declare attackers step (something which the part I highlighted shows isnt the case).

~ Tim 
I am Blue/White Reached DCI Rating 1800 on 28/10/11. :D
Sig
56287226 wrote:
190106923 wrote:
Not bad. But what happens flavor wise when one kamahl kills the other one?
Zis iz a sign uf deep psychological troma, buried in zer subconscious mind. By keelink himzelf, Kamahl iz physically expressink hiz feelinks uf self-disgust ova hiz desire for hiz muzzer. [/GermanPsychologistVoice]
56957928 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
That makes no sense to me. If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed? ~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch. YAY COLOR IDENTITY
56287226 wrote:
56888618 wrote:
Is algebra really that difficult?
Survey says yes.
56883218 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
56287226 wrote:
56735468 wrote:
And no judge will ever give you a game loss for playing snow covered lands.
I now have a new goal in life. ;)
The new Gatecrash card, Angelic Skirmisher has an ability that triggers at the beginning of combat.  It is my understanding that 'I'm going to attack' and similar is a shortcut for 'I will pass priority until the declare attackers step', which is after the Angelic Skirmisher would trigger.  Is using this shortcut going to cause me to miss the trigger, or after my opponent says 'Go ahead', could I then say 'Angelic Skirmisher triggers and I choose ...' before declaring?  Would I have to adjust my shortcut proposal somehow to avoid missing the trigger?

Cheers


Correct me if I'm wrong, but when Angelic Skirmisher triggers, you and your opponent need to pass priority before anything actually happens, no?

1) Your main phase ends and you go to the Beginning of Combat Step.
2) Angelic Skirmisher's ability triggers and is put on the stack.
3) You have a chance to cast spells or activate abilities. You pass.
4) Your opponent has a chance to cast spell or activate abilities. They pass.
5) Angelic Skirmisher's ability resolves, since it's the top object on the stack.

Technically, you should have chosen the mode for Angelic Skirmisher's ability at 2), but since neither you nor your opponent responded to it, it doesn't really matter.
If you get to 5), choose lifelink and then your opponent decides that, whoa, he doesn't want your creatures having lifelink, it's technically too late for them to respond. But you also should have declared the mode earlier, so it would be only reasonable to let them respond.
That's the technically correct sequence of details, yes. However, it's quite rare for people to do things that explicitly, so the question was really about player communication, shortcuts, and whether the trigger has been "missed".
That wouldnt be a problem, since the OP was worried about missing a trigger during the beginning of combat step by accidentally skipping right to the declare attackers step (something which the part I highlighted shows isnt the case).

~ Tim 


If he uses the conventional shortcut to enter combat and the NAP then passes, the game immediately progresses to the Declare Attackers step and he would miss those triggers.

Are you sure you choose when the ability goes on the stack?  It seems to me that the choice is part of the resolution of the ability.  It doesn't have the template of a modal ability.
it is chosen during the resolution, yes
proud member of the 2011 community team
Are you sure you choose when the ability goes on the stack?  It seems to me that the choice is part of the resolution of the ability.  It doesn't have the template of a modal ability.


I'm not sure, no, but players certainly should have to choose when the ability goes on the stack.

"At the beginning of each combat, choose first strike, vigilance or lifelink. Creatures you control gain that ability until end of turn."
"At the beginning of each combat, choose one — creatures you control gain first strike until end of turn; or creatures you control gain vigilance until end of turn; or creatures you control gain lifelink until end of turn."

Those two sentences mean the same thing, but one of them is needlessly wordy. If the rules consider them different in functionality, then the rules are flawed.
the rules consider them functionally different

just like "when ~ becomes blocked" and "when ~ becomes blocked by a creature" are functionally different
proud member of the 2011 community team
the rules consider them functionally different

just like "when ~ becomes blocked" and "when ~ becomes blocked by a creature" are functionally different


Well yeah. One of those only triggers when ~ gets blocked by a creature; the other triggers when ~ gets blocked by anything. They're functionally different because they actually mean different things.

I reiterate: if things with the same meaning are functionally different according to the rules, then the rules are flawed.
no, one triggers only once when it is blocked by any number of creatures, the other triggers for each creature

non-creatures can't block
proud member of the 2011 community team
Those two sentences mean the same thing, but one of them is needlessly wordy. If the rules consider them different in functionality, then the rules are flawed.

They are different, but for a very good reason.

Most choices for spells and abilities are made on resolution. There are a few specific ones that need to be chosen when the spell/ability goes on the stack though, such as targets. This means that if there's a choice to be made that would affect these advance choices, that choice must also be made in advance, because if it wasn't you'd get nonsensical results like being unable to cast Branching Bolt unless you could target both a creature with flying and one without, regardless of what you intended to deal damage to.

So the rules need a way to force certain choices to be made in advance. And the modal wording ("Choose one/two/whatever--") is that way.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

no, one triggers only once when it is blocked by any number of creatures, the other triggers for each creature

non-creatures can't block



Well...
56965458 wrote:
As long as it's random, I really can't see where's the problem. Anyway, there's already a few standard ways for doing this. We listed them in this thread. If someone does the bogey-bogey, eats the cards, waits until they come out, look out the approximate order, place replacements in the same order, calls the president to ask him to give him a string of numbers, puts the card in the given order, then pick the cards in the order given by taking the date of birth of his opponent, reversed, and taking only every other number, then a judge can clearly declare that he's random enough.
56874518 wrote:
The beauty of sarcasm is that when the person using it is totally incorrect, you can just remove the sarcasm and end up with a post that is actually correct.
no, one triggers only once when it is blocked by any number of creatures, the other triggers for each creature

non-creatures can't block


So they're different in more than one way. (If an artifact says "This artifact can block as though it were a creature," it can block.)

Those two sentences mean the same thing, but one of them is needlessly wordy. If the rules consider them different in functionality, then the rules are flawed.

They are different, but for a very good reason.

Most choices for spells and abilities are made on resolution. There are a few specific ones that need to be chosen when the spell/ability goes on the stack though, such as targets. This means that if there's a choice to be made that would affect these advance choices, that choice must also be made in advance, because if it wasn't you'd get nonsensical results like being unable to cast Branching Bolt unless you could target both a creature with flying and one without, regardless of what you intended to deal damage to.

So the rules need a way to force certain choices to be made in advance. And the modal wording ("Choose one/two/whatever--") is that way.


I get that part. What I don't get is what makes "Choose one — x, y or z" modal whereas "Choose x, y or z" isn't. They mean the same thing. The only explanation I can come up with is that the rules say "Choose one —" is modal and don't say it for "Choose x, y or z", but then we return to the point of the rules being flawed.
I get that part. What I don't get is what makes "Choose one — x, y or z" modal whereas "Choose x, y or z" isn't. They mean the same thing. The only explanation I can come up with is that the rules say "Choose one —" is modal and don't say it for "Choose x, y or z", but then we return to the point of the rules being flawed.


The rules of English do not supercede the rules of Magic. This is not a flaw. It is by design.

That wouldnt be a problem, since the OP was worried about missing a trigger during the beginning of combat step by accidentally skipping right to the declare attackers step (something which the part I highlighted shows isnt the case).

~ Tim 


If he uses the conventional shortcut to enter combat and the NAP then passes, the game immediately progresses to the Declare Attackers step and he would miss those triggers.



Yes, you are right - I missed the "until the opponent has priority" bit - thats what puts it past the point where the ability should have triggered. If the opponent accepts the shortcut, are they both guilty of a missed trigger/failure to maintain or something? 

~ Tim 
I am Blue/White Reached DCI Rating 1800 on 28/10/11. :D
Sig
56287226 wrote:
190106923 wrote:
Not bad. But what happens flavor wise when one kamahl kills the other one?
Zis iz a sign uf deep psychological troma, buried in zer subconscious mind. By keelink himzelf, Kamahl iz physically expressink hiz feelinks uf self-disgust ova hiz desire for hiz muzzer. [/GermanPsychologistVoice]
56957928 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
That makes no sense to me. If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed? ~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch. YAY COLOR IDENTITY
56287226 wrote:
56888618 wrote:
Is algebra really that difficult?
Survey says yes.
56883218 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
56287226 wrote:
56735468 wrote:
And no judge will ever give you a game loss for playing snow covered lands.
I now have a new goal in life. ;)
modify the shortcut to "entering combat, any responses?"
any responses would still be in your main phase in that case, otherwise you move to the "begin of combat" step and put the trigger on the stack

No. Any such or even remotely similar phrase should be interpreted as invoking the standard shortcut; the only way around this is to very, very, very, absolutely a gazillion percent clear that you are deviating from the standard shortcut.
Games of Magic should not be decided by mincing words; even more so in environments where players don't necessarily share a native language. If we allowed certain phrasings to invoke the shortcut and certain other phrasings to bypass it, even though they may sound similar to the untrained ear, the shortcut would become meaningless, because everybody would just learn the correct phrasing to bypass it. By interpreting basically anything as invoking the shortcut, we protect the opponent from shenanigans like "Combat?", "Cryptic Command, tap all your guys", "ok, once that has resolved, I'll cast this non-flash creature with haste and still smack you in the face".

As to how this would work with the Angel, I'd just go, "Combat, Angel triggers."

That's the perfect solution.

DCI Lvl 2 Judge

That wouldnt be a problem, since the OP was worried about missing a trigger during the beginning of combat step by accidentally skipping right to the declare attackers step (something which the part I highlighted shows isnt the case).

~ Tim 


If he uses the conventional shortcut to enter combat and the NAP then passes, the game immediately progresses to the Declare Attackers step and he would miss those triggers.



No he wouldn't.  A trigger is only considered missed if you take an action passed when it would have resolved.  Provided you announce your choice for the skirmisher before declaring attackers you're fine.
 
A trigger is considered missed once the controller of the trigger has taken an action after the point at which a trigger should have resolved or, in the case of a trigger controlled by the non-active player, after that player has taken an action that indicates they have actively passed priority. Players may not cause triggered abilities to be missed by taking game actions or otherwise prematurely advancing the game. For example, if a player draws a card during his or her draw step without allowing the controller of a triggered ability that would trigger during that turn’s upkeep to resolve it, place that trigger on the stack at this point and issue no penalty.

As to how this would work with the Angel, I'd just go, "Combat, Angel triggers."

That's the perfect solution.

The problem I see with this method is that you don't give your opponent the chance to accept the shortcut before you annoucne the trigger, thus giving them a chance to remove the Angelic Skirmisher before it triggers if they refure the shortcut.  They may have forgotten about the trigger and are holding a removal spell they otherwise intended to use as a combat trick.

I just want to be clear though that my intention is not to rules lawyer anyone out of a legitimate chance to respond to something, but to avoid being rules lawyered out of my own trigger without giving information away.  So I guess my further question as a result of the responses here is:

Does 'Beginning of Combat?' constitute a shortcut to the declare attackers phase, or is this reasonably explicit enough that if the opponent passes I will announce my trigger and if they respond we are still in my main phase?    Still being in my main phase is not so important for this scenario, but may as well be covered.

Or has it been decided that the trigger has not been missed as long as I declare it before taking any other actions regardless of the shortcut?

Cheers
I'm also interested in seeing the answer to LoveMonkey's question.

An easy way to make the Main Phase part relevant is to say Player A controls Angelic Skirmisher and Basandra, Battle Seraph (so that A's opponent can't respond to the trigger with something like a Stifle). Let's also assume for the sake of argument that A's opponent Player N is kinda dumb and will forget about A's triggers until A announces them. Let's also assume Competitive REL so that all this trigger announcement stuff actually matters. It's Player A's main phase.

Scenario 1:

A: "Go to combat?"
N: (thinking A is passing priority until just before Declare Attackers step) "Okay."
A: "Angelic Skirmisher triggers."
N: "You missed it, we're at Declare Attackers." 

How does a judge resolve this? My guess is "the trigger is on the stack and N has priority in the Beginning of Combat step" but I'm not a judge.

Scenario 2:

A: "Go to combat?"
N: (thinking A is passing priority until just before Declare Attackers step) "Okay."
A: "Angelic Skirmisher triggers."
N: "In that case, in your main phase I Doom Blade your Angelic Skirmisher." 
A: "You can't, you accepted the shortcut and you have priority in the Beginning of Combat step which means you can't cast Doom Blade."

How does a judge resolve this? My guess is that the answer is same as in Scenario 1.

Scenario 3:

A: "Go to beginning of combat?" (A genuinely feels this means the same as "I want to go to the Beginning of Combat step".)
N: "Okay." (N genuinely thought A was using the conventional shortcut meaning "I offer to pass priority until you have priority in the BoC step.")
A: "Angelic Skirmisher triggers."
N: "But we're at Declare Attackers and you missed the trigger."
A: "I clearly said I want to go to the Beginning of Combat step, not Declare Attackers."

Oh dear, I seem to have spilled priority everywhere. 

I guess the ultimate question is this. Player A wants to exit their Main Phase without reminding N of the trigger, but without missing it and in such a way that N has clearly missed their opportunity to respond in the Main Phase. Is this possible within the rules? I feel like Player A saying "I pass in my Main Phase" or "End Main Phase?" might be the best compromise, but the unusual wording itself may serve as a reminder to N so it's not ideal. On the other hand, the "Go to Beginning of Combat?" shortcut might be juuuust weasely enough to get Player A a cheating DQ from a judge if they think he/she was trying to trick N into thinking A meant the conventional "Go to combat" shortcut.

I know the IPG and MTR aren't iron-clad in the sense that the CR is but still, I think it's an interesting question.


Sorry I didn't mean to write a novel there. 
No he wouldn't.  A trigger is only considered missed if you take an action passed when it would have resolved.  Provided you announce your choice for the skirmisher before declaring attackers you're fine.


Fair point, but that brings up another question:

If the AP uses the conventional shortcut to enter combat, the NAP indicates a pass, then the AP announces his BoC triggers, would the NAP receive priority in the BoC step again? There seems to be an ambiguous game state at work here.

Do you essentially rewind the NAP's pass and let him respond to the previously unmentioned triggers or is his pass considered to have occured with the stealth triggers already on the stack, and the acknowledgement after said pass was simply acknowledging their resolution?
No he wouldn't.  A trigger is only considered missed if you take an action passed when it would have resolved.  Provided you announce your choice for the skirmisher before declaring attackers you're fine.


Fair point, but that brings up another question:

If the AP uses the conventional shortcut to enter combat, the NAP indicates a pass, then the AP announces his BoC triggers, would the NAP receive priority in the BoC step again? There seems to be an ambiguous game state at work here.

Do you essentially rewind the NAP's pass and let him respond to the previously unmentioned triggers or is his pass considered to have occured with the stealth triggers already on the stack, and the acknowledgement after said pass was simply acknowledging their resolution?


I not sure but I think that you only have to announce the resolution of the triggered ability not the ability being put on the stack (although you will presumable have to announce any targets or modes chosen, if applicable).  So in this case you would just resolve the ability then both players would get at least one more priority pass before the BoC step ends.  

You're right that this can lead to an ambiguous game state if a player forgets a trigger.  However the ambiguity will be resolved in short order when that player fails to resolve it.  Having to announce a trigger separately  from resolving it is too far removed from normal play to be practical and will result in a lot of warnings for missed triggers when a player puts a counter on his Stromkirk Noble without first announcing the trigger.

I get that part. What I don't get is what makes "Choose one — x, y or z" modal whereas "Choose x, y or z" isn't. They mean the same thing. The only explanation I can come up with is that the rules say "Choose one —" is modal and don't say it for "Choose x, y or z", but then we return to the point of the rules being flawed.


Yep, just like the rules are flawed because "Choose a creature, that creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn" and "Target creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn" mean different things.

It's the same thing as the difference in modality, but you're so used to "target" being a special case that you don't notice it any more. 
I guess the ultimate question is this. Player A wants to exit their Main Phase without reminding N of the trigger, but without missing it and in such a way that N has clearly missed their opportunity to respond in the Main Phase. Is this possible within the rules?

This is exactly what I want to know.

Cheers
There's no way to miss the angel's trigger by using the normal "Go to combat?" shortcut. This shortcut takes the game to the beginning of combat, with Player B having priority and the angel's ability on the stack. A trigger can't be considered missed until Player A takes an action after it should have resolved (such as declaring attackers).

The following exchange would be acceptable:
Player A: Combat?
Player B: Sure. (It is at this point that B has lost his chance.)
Player A: Any responses to Angel's trigger?*
Player B: No.
Player A: Okay, my creatures have first strike.

Here's what B should have done:
Player A: Combat?
Player B: I want to Doom Blade your Skirmisher just before we leave the main phase.

*Player A might use this tactic in case he doesn't want B to know what ability he'll pick before the trigger resolves. Normally, it's fine to just handle the resolution of a trigger in order to demonstrate awareness, but in this case, there is no way to determine whether B has passed priority.
I not sure but I think that you only have to announce the resolution of the triggered ability not the ability being put on the stack (although you will presumable have to announce any targets or modes chosen, if applicable).  So in this case you would just resolve the ability then both players would get at least one more priority pass before the BoC step ends.


So if the NAP wants to respond to the trigger, but doesn't want to remind his opponent to put it on the stack, he's screwed out of his opportunity to respond to it because the AP never announced that it was actually on the stack?

That seems untenable.

I not sure but I think that you only have to announce the resolution of the triggered ability not the ability being put on the stack (although you will presumable have to announce any targets or modes chosen, if applicable).  So in this case you would just resolve the ability then both players would get at least one more priority pass before the BoC step ends.


So if the NAP wants to respond to the trigger, but doesn't want to remind his opponent to put it on the stack, he's screwed out of his opportunity to respond to it because the AP never announced that it was actually on the stack?

That seems untenable.



Bear in mind that normally both player are equally responsible for maintaining the game state and so you must remind your opponent if they forget to do something, even if there forgetting is beneficial to you.  For example, if a player cast a spell with buyback then forget to put it in their hand you have to remind them to do so.  This used to be the case with triggered abilities until quite recently.  Unless i am mistaken, the reason they changed the rules for missed triggers was because it was difficult to keep track of what abilities your opponent had in addition to your own and they didn't want to give players penalties for missing their opponents triggers as it was so easy to do so.  They never wanted to make letting your opponent forget compulsory actions to be a part of game play, it was simply a side effect of these changes.  Hence it makes sense that they are not going to make it easy to do so if they can possible avoid it.
I not sure but I think that you only have to announce the resolution of the triggered ability not the ability being put on the stack (although you will presumable have to announce any targets or modes chosen, if applicable).  So in this case you would just resolve the ability then both players would get at least one more priority pass before the BoC step ends.


So if the NAP wants to respond to the trigger, but doesn't want to remind his opponent to put it on the stack, he's screwed out of his opportunity to respond to it because the AP never announced that it was actually on the stack?

That seems untenable.




It seems to me that the Tournament Rules and the IPG are written to avoid this type of play, and even penalize it when possible. In that light, it makes sense that they would "screw" a player out of an opportunity, if that player was hoping his opponent would forget a trigger. I believe that avoidance of this type of play is a small part of the reason we got the new missed trigger rules in the first place: players would avoid mentioning triggers until it was too late to stop them, for example, attacking with an exalted creature and hoping the opponent will block poorly due to a miscalculation of the creature's P/T.
There's no way to miss the angel's trigger by using the normal "Go to combat?" shortcut. This shortcut takes the game to the beginning of combat, with Player B having priority and the angel's ability on the stack. A trigger can't be considered missed until Player A takes an action after it should have resolved (such as declaring attackers).

Thanks, seems like I should be fine doing things just how I have been after all.

Cheers

So multiple people are now telling me that I can prevent an opponent from responding to my triggered abilities by failing to mention that they are on the stack until after the opponent has passed priority and allowed them to resolve?

I find that literally incredible. Can I get a third opinion?
The rules have a bit of room for subjectivity, so I'd like to hear a judge's take on this myself.

Note that your opponent does have to agree to the shortcut, though. If he's aware of the trigger, he can respond to it. Only if he fails to notice it can you slip it by.
Note that your opponent does have to agree to the shortcut, though. If he's aware of the trigger, he can respond to it. Only if he fails to notice it can you slip it by.


I dont think this particular issue has anything to do with shortcuts really, so I guess I should probly go ahead start a new thread for it.

So multiple people are now telling me that I can prevent an opponent from responding to my triggered abilities by failing to mention that they are on the stack until after the opponent has passed priority and allowed them to resolve?

I find that literally incredible. Can I get a third opinion?

I thought Bowshewicz answer (and what seemed to be said at the start of the thread) was that if I used the go to combat shortcut:

If my opponent accepted, then I announce the trigger and we would be in the beginning of the combat step with the trigger on the stack and my opponent with priority
If my opponent wants to decline the shortcut, they can cast a spell in my first main phase, before the ability triggers

At what point are we diddling anyone out of a response?

Cheers
"OK, beginning of combat?"
"Yep, Im done"
"OK, Angel triggers, response?"
"None"
"I choose..."

Thats how it would go.

~ Tim      




How would this work if we reversed the OP's original situation? Meaning that if Player A was attacking and Player B was defending with the angel? Would the trigger follow the same path or would it happen at another time?
I assume we're still talking about Competitive REL, where triggers can be missed?

As the active player, you offer the combat shortcut by saying something like "Attacks?"

The nonactive player isn't considered to have missed his trigger until he passes priority after the point at which his trigger would have resolved. The shortcut means the AP has passed priority in the beginning of combat step, which is after the trigger goes on the stack. NAP has to acknowledge the trigger while passing priority to the AP, because that is the point it would be resolving (since AP already implicitly passed priority, the ability resolves as soon as NAP passes back). If the NAP just says something to indicate that the AP may start declaring attackers but without mentioning anything about the angel trigger and the associated choice to be made, that the trigger has been missed.

Note: If the player says "Ok..." that doesn't always mean "I'm passing priority," so be careful not to make assumptions. If you're not 100% sure the player has passed priority, just clarify. "So I'm good to declare attackers now?" or something like that would be fine.

At the prerelease, it's much easier. NAP says "wait, I choose X for my Angel" whenever, because it's not an optional ability.

Level 3 DCI Judge Mission Viejo, CA

Sign In to post comments