2/4/2013 Feature: "Missed Trigger Update"

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's "Missed Trigger Update", which goes live Monday morning on magicthegathering.com.
...welp.

This will be interesting. 
Why? Why are you still allowing people to deliberately play incorrectly?

I realize that there doesn't appear to be a "perfect solution," but so far, the best solution still appears to be forcing each player to acknowledge the game state at all times. Anything less results in incentives for the "silence" you mention, which is a euphemism for ignoring the game as it would be played on Magic Online or with judges watching from start to finish.

This doesn't result in more skillful victories; it results in people "winning" because somebody didn't remember to "show awareness" on something. In no way does this decision--or the previous one--promote good or honest gameplay. We're still at least a half-step backward on this front. Please realize it before Organized Play gets embarrassed by the ramifications.

I thought everything in the new era of magic was supposed to be simple, elegant, and intuitive.


Sorry to break it to you MTG creating folks but these rules for triggered abilities are anything but.

Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
This is still the aftermath from Wizards' refusing to acknowledge Cavern of Souls was a horrible mistake, right?

If so, Modern's existence as a format is going to keep this issue live for quite some time.

Also, agree with the poster above that these rules are as elegant as cinderblocks on a buffalo. If it's the fifth Tuesday of the month and you're the seventh son of a seventh son, you must report all missed triggers unless you can convince you're opponent these rules are for an Un-set.

Reminds me of damage prevention bubbles and "on its way to the graveyard" nonsense, lo, dead these many years.

If this is the simplicity we've been giving up enjoyed interactions for, maybe you could give us back combat damage on the stack? Yeah, right, I know, that's too hard for people to understand.
At Regular REL, there are really only two "rules." You aren't allowed to miss your own triggered abilities, and your opponent isn't required to remind you about them.



Was this a mistake? I thought at regular REL you are required to remind your opponent's of their missed triggers. Although now I can't find that anywhere in the Tournament Rules Document. All I could find was this.

4.4 At Competitive and Professional REL, players are not required to point out the existence of triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so within a turn if they wish.

I guess it's inferred that you *are* required to point out triggered abilities at non-competitive, non-professional REL, although that is not explicitly stated.

You guys really need to clarify this for FNM.
In the Pyreheart Wolf example, do I REALLY need to mention every freaking time I attack that my creatures have to be blocked by at least two blockers? If, when we go to blockers, my opponent tries to block with just one, and at that time I remind him that because the Wolf is attacking he has to do two, that should be more than sufficient to demonstrate awareness, and there was no conceiveable way that trigger could affect the game state before then, but by the current rules technically by not stating the obvious during the declare attackers step, I "didn't demonstrate awareness." I can see the first attack needing to be that way, but especially if I'm required to do this every attack, its just silly irrelevant game-prolonging rubbish. I loathe the way that triggered abilities are dealt with.

Triggered abilites should simply be enforced always; make them impossible to miss again, PLEASE. Its not really skill testing to force someone to state the obvious, and forgetting to say something that you and your opponent know will happen much more often than actually missing something. These rules are still incredibly stupid, frustrating, and needlessly complicated.
Profile picture by Mackenzie Schubert www.plaincomics.com
I like this change.  I've heard too many stories where, after winning a match, a players helps their opponent improve for next time by mentioning something that he'd overlooked.  At which point the loser calls a judge on his opponent who gets a match loss. This puts the burden of triggers on the player whose they are, as it should be.

 Acknowledging triggers is not that much work.  In the Pyreheart Wolf example, just say "trigger" when you tap it.  I know Wizards is designing for monosyllabic cavemen who shove cards at each other and grunt, but surely that isn't the majority yet.

If you're on MTGO check out the Free Events via PDCMagic and Gatherling.

Other games you should try:
DC Universe Online - action-based MMO.  Free to play.  Surprisingly well-designed combat and classes.

Planetside 2 - Free to play MMO-meets-FPS and the first shooter I've liked in ages.
Simunomics - Free-to-play economy simulation game.

In the Pyreheart Wolf example, do I REALLY need to mention every freaking time I attack that my creatures have to be blocked by at least two blockers?

You don't have to say anything until it would have a visible effect.
At Regular REL, there are really only two "rules." You aren't allowed to miss your own triggered abilities, and your opponent isn't required to remind you about them.



Was this a mistake? I thought at regular REL you are required to remind your opponent's of their missed triggers. Although now I can't find that anywhere in the Tournament Rules Document. All I could find was this.

4.4 At Competitive and Professional REL, players are not required to point out the existence of triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so within a turn if they wish.

I guess it's inferred that you *are* required to point out triggered abilities at non-competitive, non-professional REL, although that is not explicitly stated.

You guys really need to clarify this for FNM.

This is an update to those rules (the documents themselves have not been released yet. I've heard they'll be up within 24 hours, but don't quote me). If you read the line right after the one you quoted, it mentions that this is change.

For others: I recommend reading a few other documents about this change from Toby Elliott.

For Judges: blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2013/02/0...
For Players: blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2013/02/0...
Detailed Commentary on the triggers: blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2013/02/0...

Wizards.Com Boards Net Rep

DCI Level 2 Judge

Questions don't have to make sense, but answers do.

I'm sick of changes every month. How about if you miss a trigger you are automatically disqualified without prize. Then there wouldn't be any controversy.
I agree on most of the changes. But I think it would be better if you should aununce the first time a triggeret hability goes to the stack.. Like the fist time the Knight of Infamy attacks you should state that he is a 3/2, but only for the first time, then the "A triggered ability that affects the game state in non-visible ways.unless a visible" shall apply. But I think that is better to anunce the first time of each triggered.
Please stop writing those walls of text. Can someone please tell me what the actual changes are, briefly?
Honestly, this article seemed really unclear, and reading through it, I was very confused--I wasn't at all sure what the changes were, much less how to implement them as a judge. Toby's blog posts (linked above by Nate) clarified things immensely for me. Now that I know what they are, I'm quite happy with these changes.

Sorry, Matt, but I think Toby just explained things way better than you did.

In the Pyreheart Wolf example, do I REALLY need to mention every freaking time I attack that my creatures have to be blocked by at least two blockers? If, when we go to blockers, my opponent tries to block with just one, and at that time I remind him that because the Wolf is attacking he has to do two, that should be more than sufficient to demonstrate awareness, and there was no conceiveable way that trigger could affect the game state before then, but by the current rules technically by not stating the obvious during the declare attackers step, I "didn't demonstrate awareness."

Ummm... I suggest you read Toby's blog posts, because you don't seem to understand the changes this article talks about at all.

Under the changes outlined here, it is sufficient to demonstate awareness of Pyreheart Wolf's trigger by saying "No, you can't do that" when your opponent tries to block with just one creature. It is sufficient to demonstrate awareness of Plated Geopede's landfall by saying "Drop a land and attack. Do you block? No? Okay, take three." It is sufficient to demonstrate awareness of Emrakul's trigger by saying "...and end my turn. Taking my second turn..." It is sufficient to demonstrate awareness of storm by sitting there waiting for your opponent to die.

I've heard too many stories where, after winning a match, a players helps their opponent improve for next time by mentioning something that he'd overlooked.  At which point the loser calls a judge on his opponent who gets a match loss.

Whoever was spreading those stories is either criminally misinformed or just plain incorrect.

I'm sick of changes every month. How about if you miss a trigger you are automatically disqualified without prize. Then there wouldn't be any controversy.

There also wouldn't be any players, because we'd have disqualified them all.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Please stop writing those walls of text. Can someone please tell me what the actual changes are, briefly?

Okay. Paraphrasing Toby Elliot a bit here:

Under the missed trigger rules in place right now--the rules that the rules Matt's talking about will replace--the basic philosophy is "If you [don't mention/don't demonstrate awareness of/fail to communicate] your trigger, we assume you missed it."

Under the rules Matt's outlining, the basic philosophy is "We assume that you remembered your trigger until you give concrete evidence that you didn't." That evidence can come in various forms, depending on what your trigger was supposed to do, but that's the gist of it.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

For anyone who is still unclear about what the changes are, I have broken them down and given much clearer explanations and examples in an article that I just finished writing for my local game store.

www.da-planet.com/profiles/blogs/importa...

It goes over each change in detail and how it will work in a real game situation, including player dialogue, which is an important part of any magic game.
For anyone who is still unclear about what the changes are, I have broken them down and given much clearer explanations and examples in an article that I just finished writing for my local game store.

www.da-planet.com/profiles/blogs/importa...

It goes over each change in detail and how it will work in a real game situation, including player dialogue, which is an important part of any magic game.

I skimmed it a bit--you might want to check that bit about Pyreheart Wolf, because what you wrote is not accurate at all. I think next time you might want to make sure your understanding is completely accurate before writing an explanation article of your own.


Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

This is much better. I think they might have cracked it this time. Thanks for not being afraid to tweak it until it works.
Why? Why are you still allowing people to deliberately play incorrectly?

I realize that there doesn't appear to be a "perfect solution," but so far, the best solution still appears to be forcing each player to acknowledge the game state at all times.



It used to be that way. And it was miserable.

This is still the aftermath from Wizards' refusing to acknowledge Cavern of Souls was a horrible mistake, right?



Cavern of Souls has neither triggered abilities or horrible mistakes. 

If this is the simplicity we've been giving up enjoyed interactions for, maybe you could give us back combat damage on the stack? Yeah, right, I know, that's too hard for people to understand.

 

It still seems to be too hard for some to understand WHY DotS was removed.
For anyone who is still unclear about what the changes are, I have broken them down and given much clearer explanations and examples in an article that I just finished writing for my local game store.

www.da-planet.com/profiles/blogs/importa...

It goes over each change in detail and how it will work in a real game situation, including player dialogue, which is an important part of any magic game.

I skimmed it a bit--you might want to check that bit about Pyreheart Wolf, because what you wrote is not accurate at all. I think next time you might want to make sure your understanding is completely accurate before writing an explanation article of your own.





edit: I think I've figured out what the problem is. The problem is Tabak used extremely ambiguous wording in his article. He says that pyreheart wolfs ability has to be announced as soon as it "has an effect". I interpreted that as "when it resolves", since the ability goes into effect as soon as it resolves. But it seems everyone else is interpreting it as "has an effect [on actual gameplay]", which would be during declare blockers step. The bracketed words were not in the article, which is why it's so confusing and frustrating.

I've changed my article to match everyone else's interpretation, but can a WotC employee please confirm or deny this? Also, can you please re-write the article so its less ambiguous on what has actually changed and how things work?

I'm sick of changes every month. How about if you miss a trigger you are automatically disqualified without prize. Then there wouldn't be any controversy.



Because then 4-5 players would get disqualified every round of every tournament, because the majority of magic players are human and WILL eventually miss 1 out of hundreds of INVISIBLE triggers that they will have to remember to announce ON TIME over the course of even a 4 round tournament. Yeah, that doesn't sound controversial at all, that sounds like a great way to build a player base.

Make magic inclusive, not exclusive, and there will be more people to enjoy and support the game.
This article was intended to be a companion to the actual update, being posted later today. I recommend everyone read the actual policy if they're interested in the finer points of the changes.

The upshot is you have to mention your triggers at the natural points for doing so. As the opponent, you should assume cards work until given concrete evidence your opponent made a mistake. 
I feel very stupid now, but I still am not quite clear what the changes are. Can anyone give me an example of things under the old rules and things under the new that will show me the difference?
Under the old rules, you had to announce triggers as soon as they would go on the stack. Now you don't have to announce/acknowledge a trigger you control until it actually does something, like specify a target, create a token, deal damage etc.

Example 1, old rules you had to announce your Geist of Saint Trafts triggered ability being added to the stack at the exact moment you tapped it and declared your attack. New rules, you can attack with Geist without saying anything, and you won't miss its trigger until you forget to put an angel token into play at the correct time.

Example2, old rules you had to announce exalted triggers exactly as you tapped your creature and declared it attacking. New rules, you don't have to announce exalted until your exalted creature assigns damage, or until your opponent asks you how big your attacking creature is, at which point you must answer truthfully how big you think it is.

Wait..... Question. If my opponent attacks with a knight of infamy (lets say I don't know the card has exalted), and I have a flash creature in my hand. If I ask my opponent how big their knight is before blocks, do they have to say it's a 3/2? It could technically still be a 2/1 with exalted on the stack before blocks because the exalted ability hasn't resolved yet, and noone has asked about the stack.  How do we know the difference between being fraudulent and being tricky?
So, if I am a prerelease-only player, the change for me is:

Old way: My opponent has One Thousand Leashes on my creature. If they don't mention it during my upkeep, I am responsible for doing so and altering my life total.

New way: My opponent has One Thousand Leashes on my creature. If they don't mention it during my upkeep, I can and should remain silent and leave my life total unadjusted, because the trigger doesn't happen unless they draw attention to it then.

Is that correct?
Just to be sure. What would be the ruling in the following examples:

ex1:
I attack with Geist of Saint Traft and Knight of Glory. My opponent tells me he takes 4. I tell him he should take another 4 from the angel token.

ex2:
I attack with Geist of Saint Traft and Knight of Glory. My opponent casts Pillar of Flame on the knight. I Negate it. He tells me he takes 4. I tell him he should take another 4 from the angel token.

ex3:
I attack with Traft and Knight of Glory. My opponent writes in his notes where he keeps track of his life total that he lost 4, I didn't notice and wrote a different number in my own notes.
A turn cycle later I attack again expecting to win, but I realize that he didn't reduce additional 4 from the angel token the last time because he considered it to be forgetten.

ex4:
Same as the previous example, except I attack only with Knight of Glory and my opponent writes down a loss of 2 regarding the exalted triggers to be forgotten. In my next turn I attack again expecting to win, but I realize my opponent didn't write down the damage from exalted the last time.
Thanks, TVBoy. :-)
Just to be sure. What would be the ruling in the following examples:

ex1:
I attack with Geist of Saint Traft and Knight of Glory. My opponent tells me he takes 4. I tell him he should take another 4 from the angel token.



This is correct. When you declare your attack, the Angel trigger is put onto the stack. If your opponent says he's taking 4, that means he's wanting to go through the declare attackers step and the declare blockers step. You now need to "demonstrate awareness" of your trigger that's on the stack, and you do, by saying he 's taking another 4 from the angel token, and putting a token into play. Note that this all takes place during declare attackers; your opponent could block the Angel with a Cloud Spirit.

Now, if this went a little differently, and you said "I attack with Geist and Knight", and he said "okay", and you said "Any blocks?" before putting the token into play, then you missed your trigger. You have to put the token into play to show you're aware of the trigger, and if you're moving to the declare blockers step without the token in play, you missed it.

ex2:

I attack with Geist of Saint Traft and Knight of Glory. My opponent casts Pillar of Flame on the knight. I Negate it. He tells me he takes 4. I tell him he should take another 4 from the angel token.


I'll assume you mean Shock; Pillar of Flame is a Sorcery.

When your opponent casts Shock after you attack, since it's possible he's doing that in response to your trigger, then your trigger is still on the stack. You cast Negate. Once Negate resolves, you're now in example 1 above.

ex3:

I attack with Traft and Knight of Glory. My opponent writes in his notes where he keeps track of his life total that he lost 4, I didn't notice and wrote a different number in my own notes.
A turn cycle later I attack again expecting to win, but I realize that he didn't reduce additional 4 from the angel token the last time because he considered it to be forgetten.


You never put a token into play, which is necessary to "demonstrate awareness" of this ability. You missed your trigger.

ex4:

Same as the previous example, except I attack only with Knight of Glory and my opponent writes down a loss of 2 regarding the exalted triggers to be forgotten. In my next turn I attack again expecting to win, but I realize my opponent didn't write down the damage from exalted the last time.


You never "demonstrated awareness" of your Exalted trigger, by saying something like "Take 3", "Exalted", "Trigger", clearly showing your opponent your count of his life and the fact that he took three damage, or anything else. You missed your trigger.

57193048 wrote:
srs rls mgr is srs
57125208 wrote:
"If you're having defense problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 soldiers but they're just 1/1."
Thanks for answering Drab. The subject is clearer now and I agree with most of wha you said.

You now need to "demonstrate awareness" of your trigger that's on the stack, and you do, by saying he 's taking another 4 from the angel token, and putting a token into play

I'm not sure I actually need take a physical token and place it on the table. It seems like just mentioning the extra damage should be enough here (in ex1). No?

Note that this all takes place during declare attackers; your opponent could block the Angel with a Cloud Spirit .

What if he blocks the knight, and I tell him "ok, take 6"? Do we go back to the attackers and he gets to rechoose his blockers?

---

Now as for discussing about the rule change (but not on how it works):
I'm sure many players are used to treat some tokens creating effects as "invisible". They attack with Traft without actually taking a physical token and placing on the table because they're going to remove it a bit later. And they'd rather place a living weapon and block and attack with that card as though they were doing so with a germ token attached to it.

Isn't forcing players to actually put a physical token in such cases a bit tedious? Isn't there a room to consider some of these effects as "invisible"?
In cases where blocks and/or combat tricks are performed, why is it okay for exalted to pass through hiddenly (until damage is  dealt) while it's not okay for the "extra 4 damage" from Traft to do so?
You now need to "demonstrate awareness" of your trigger that's on the stack, and you do, by saying he 's taking another 4 from the angel token, and putting a token into play



I'm not sure I actually need take a physical token and place it on the table. It seems like just mentioning the extra damage should be enough here (in ex1). No?



At the very least, you need to openly acknowledge the "change in the game state" when the ability resolves. This could be putting a physical token in play, or it could be saying "I put the angel token into play". If you leave declare attackers without making it clear there's a token, though, then you missed your trigger.

Note that this all takes place during declare attackers; your opponent could block the Angel with a Cloud Spirit .

What if he blocks the knight, and I tell him "ok, take 6"? Do we go back to the attackers and he gets to rechoose his blockers?



If you never mentioned the token in any way, and you yourself have confirmed that you're in the declare blockers step, then there's no token. However, if you attack, and he says "I block X with Y", then he's proposing a shortcut to the declare blockers step. You can accept his shortcut, which means you missed your trigger, or you can decline his shortcut and remain in declare attackers, so that you can resolve your angel trigger. There's no way for him to be stuck with a blocking decision and you have an attacking angel that you yourself never acknowledged.

In cases where blocks and/or combat tricks are performed, why is it okay for exalted to pass through hiddenly (until damage is  dealt) while it's not okay for the "extra 4 damage" from Traft to do so?



Exalted and Traft's trigger are two different kinds of triggered abilities. From the article:

A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution.

The controller needs to acknowledge the change or choice before taking an action that he or she couldn't take before the ability would resolve.




This is Traft's token. Since a token is a visible change in the game state, you have to acknowledge it on resolution.


A triggered ability that affects the game state in non-visible ways.

The controller must take physical action or make it clear what the action is the first time the change has an effect on the visible game state. Many triggered abilities, like exalted and the first ability of Jace, Architect of Thought, fall under this case.




This is Exalted. Since this effect is "non-visible", you need to acknowledge it the first time it would have a visible effect (like changing a life total). 

 

57193048 wrote:
srs rls mgr is srs
57125208 wrote:
"If you're having defense problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 soldiers but they're just 1/1."
It really bothers me that triggered abilities are somehow not a real part of the game. Both players must maintain correct game state at all times …except for triggered abilities. What? You can cheat here and here and here, just not here or here.

I get that it's hard to enforce and I respect the intent of Wizards' solution, but adding rules exceptions is dangerous, particularly when they support actions that are explicitly cheating in every other part of the game.
Exalted and Traft's trigger are two different kinds of triggered abilities.

Yes, I get that. But I'm trying to figure whether it should be that way and if there's a possibility to change the rules so that cases like Traft and living weapon can be treated like they're not visible (in order to ease the gameplay).
 
This is still the aftermath from Wizards' refusing to acknowledge Cavern of Souls was a horrible mistake, right?



Cavern of Souls has neither triggered abilities or horrible mistakes.


You see that last line on that card? That is a huge mistake, even objctively speaking. And it's not just me and a bunch of forum people, several pro players have also said the same thing.

But I'm sure we've had this discussion before, so I'll leave it at that.

IMAGE(http://i1.minus.com/jbcBXM4z66fMtK.jpg)

192884403 wrote:
surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?
Wait..... Question. If my opponent attacks with a knight of infamy (lets say I don't know the card has exalted), and I have a flash creature in my hand. If I ask my opponent how big their knight is before blocks, do they have to say it's a 3/2? It could technically still be a 2/1 with exalted on the stack before blocks because the exalted ability hasn't resolved yet, and noone has asked about the stack.  How do we know the difference between being fraudulent and being tricky?


I think this part, from Toby's third article ,answers your question:


  • Lots and lots of triggers fall into this bucket. Basically anything that “does” something physical on resolution: kill stuff, bring stuff back, add counters to stuff, tap stuff, etc. A player misses these when they make it explicitly clear that they’ve missed it: by playing a spell that you couldn’t otherwise play, or by trying to move (or just moving) to another phase. No losing them on technicalities, and if the opponent wants to act at instant speed but needs to know if the trigger is still on the stack, they have to ask about it directly, or we assume yes.


So it seems the opponent can answer "it's a 2/1" and not inform you yet about the trigger on the stack.


You see that last line on that card? That is a huge mistake, even objctively speaking. And it's not just me and a bunch of forum people, several pro players have also said the same thing.

But I'm sure we've had this discussion before, so I'll leave it at that.


Sorry for not leaving it be, but, what does it has to do with missed triggers? How is the rules change for missed triggered abilities an "aftermath" resulted from Cavern of Souls ability to resist counterspells?
You see that last line on that card? That is a huge mistake, even objctively speaking. And it's not just me and a bunch of forum people, several pro players have also said the same thing.

But I'm sure we've had this discussion before, so I'll leave it at that.



So the rules have gone back and forth a bit between having to explicitly announce using it's last ability or assuming it's the one you use if applicable. There were a few weeks of uncertainty. But I really don't see how it's a bad solution in the end.
Its possible Ive misinterpreted the new rules, but I really like this change. Basically, it seems like the idea is, if your opponent really forgot their trigger, its missed. If its unclear if they forgot, then they get the benefit of the doubt, 'innocent until proven guilty'.

While the actual rules are somewhat more complicated, they are easily 'grokkable', i.e. assume your opponent remembers until its clear theyve forgotten. They seek to minimize 'feel-bad moments' as much as possible, which I think is good. 

 
JUST TAKE OUT THE WORD "TRIGGER" AND DO WHAT THE CARDS SAYS!?!?!
No losing them on technicalities, and if the opponent wants to act at instant speed but needs to know if the trigger is still on the stack, they have to ask about it directly, or we assume yes. link


So, if you attack with a Knight of Infamy, we assume that it’s a 3/2 thanks to the Exalted until you do something like say “take 2″ link



Great, so we basically have two contradictory sentences here. One of them says that Knight of Infamy is assumed to be a 2/1 with the trigger on the stack that does not have to be explicitly acknowledged by the Knight's controller unless directly asked about, and the other says that Knight of Infamy is assumed to be a 3/2 as soon as it attacks.

Which one is it!?!?! Wizards, just do ONE article next time and just do it right!!!!!
Those sentences aren't contradicting each other. Here's how it would probably play out.

Scenario 1: It's your Declare Attackers Step. You tap a solitary Knight of Infamy. I ask "Any other creatures?" You shake your head no. I ask "How big is it again?" If you respond "2/1", I am free to assume that the trigger hasn't resolved yet and smack you and your Knight with Chandra's Fury and you can't claim "Oh, wait I forgot about Exalted: the Knight doesn't die."

Scenario 2: It's your Declare Attackers Step. You tap a solitary Knight of Infamy. I ask "Any other creatures?" You shake your head no. I respond "No blocks; how much damage do I take?" If you respond "2", you've missed your trigger.

Different scenarios are handled differently.

JUST TAKE OUT THE WORD "TRIGGER" AND DO WHAT THE CARDS SAYS!?!?!

Sometimes people forget what cards say. 

"Proc" stands for "Programmed Random OCcurance". It does not even vaguely apply to anything Magic cards do. Don't use it.

Level 1 Judge as of 09/26/2013

Zammm = Batman

"Ability words are flavor text for Melvins." -- Fallingman

This new policy is so stupide !!

it was  great before.....
No losing them on technicalities, and if the opponent wants to act at instant speed but needs to know if the trigger is still on the stack, they have to ask about it directly, or we assume yes. link

So, if you attack with a Knight of Infamy, we assume that it's a 3/2 thanks to the Exalted until you do something like say "take 2". link

Great, so we basically have two contradictory sentences here. One of them says that Knight of Infamy is assumed to be a 2/1 with the trigger on the stack that does not have to be explicitly acknowledged by the Knight's controller unless directly asked about, and the other says that Knight of Infamy is assumed to be a 3/2 as soon as it attacks.

The fist quote does not apply to Knight of Infamy. It applies to triggered abilities that cause a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution.
I have recently started playing some Sealed GPQs and I must say the change in attitude is rather...peculiar. It turns me into a less nice person since I'm actively hoping my opponents forget their triggers. I won a game because my opponent failed to remember his Martial Law trigger twice (okay, not just because, but it did mean a 12-point life swing). Does that mean I outplayed him? Or does it just mean I managed to win in a silly fashion? While on the one hand it felt like a rather pathetic way to win, on the other hand being able to follow the rules, know what you're doing, and systematically execute a strategy is kind of what Magic is about.

Still, it's not really a way I necessarily want to win. I feel dirty while doing it. In fact, last weekend I played in a GPQ in Germany (where I, as a Dutchman, am a foreigner) and I felt almost obliged to allow people to use their forgotten triggers and to take back stupid mistakes because I didn't want to ruin my country's reputation. And if it's something you're not willing to do to everyone, should you really do it to anyone?

I personally think this is more a matter of sportsmanship than of actual rules. Do you want your opponent to make clear that he knows in which order he has to stack his Hero of Bladehold triggers, or can you just accept the obvious result? Do you really want to pretend as if your opponent is a howler monkey who is more adept at flinging poo than playing with Cavern of Souls?

I think those are some really important questions, and ones that I have been honestly asking of myself.
76125763 wrote:
Zindaras' meta is like a fossil, ancient and its secrets yet to be uncovered. Only men of yore, long dead, knew of it.
Sign In to post comments