(4*) At what point is the trigger missed? What happens if you try to target someone who didn't announce this trigger? Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw Suggest a question: forms.gle/YTK2qrQqTL18rRsJ9
Rulings that somehow require an player to "remind" the opponent of something they might or might not have missed are always wonky to deal with, as the opponent is basically never "honest" if they forgot it or not, they will just automatially take it.
Doesn’t seem fair at all that someone would get to test their spell and get it back if the opponent remembers something. It feels like the spell should just fall off the stack. On the other hand, how can you even cast a spell without a valid target? Hmmm….
@@zeckundead Casting a spell has some requirements that have to be met. So, if a player attempted something like this, casting a Lightning Bolt with an illegal target, I wouldn't force them to go through with it since the requirements to cast the spell have not been met yet
Feels like Nick told on himself here: if his original argument was "Amy missed the trigger" and that was rejected, then isn't "I was casting it in reponse to the trigger" an obvious lie?
Yeah if anything NICK missed the trigger when priority was passed to him for end of turn. He had two options. 1. Play bolt in response to the ring being played. 2. Play bolt in response to the card ability triggering. Nick waited until priority was passed to “end of turn” therefore missing both of his opportunities to play bolt.
@@zeckundead I don't think that's really an issue given the problem statement: if Amy really just said "I cast The One Ring and pass the turn" then Nick really does have the right to respond to that spell or any abilities that trigger. The problem is that when he said "she missed her trigger" he established that he knew he was casting the spell after The One Ring resolved and with the expectation that the trigger was missed, not on the stack. That would have been great if that angle would have worked, since it would have stopped Amy's protection, but then when it didn't work he switched to a reasoning that relied on a completely different intent from the first one. Dave explains the reason this doesn't work at comp REL, but I don't think I'd let it fly at casual REL either given that contradiction. Idk I'm not actually a judge, maybe you just get more used to angle shooters lying to you.
Despite the player names being the same, the second question could easily have been its own standalone scenario, which is interesting to consider in its own right.
"was casting it in reponse to" might be a lie, but "wanted to cast in response to" is not, and is what was stated at 2:01. As stating he wanted to, but did not believe he was given the opportunity to, as the trigger was 'missed', and pointing out the trigger was missed are not inherently contradictory. Yes he could still be using the rules to effectively disadvantage the opponent, but he also may not be and I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially if Amy asked to move to end step in the same sentence as casting the One Ring, giving no opportunity for responses.
If Amy, just said "I cast the One Ring and pass", Nick's best option is just to tap and just say "bolt you", instantly. If Amy says she has protection, Nick can say he is responding to the trigger. If she doesnt say anything, Nick can say later on she missed the trigger.
The way this feels like it could easily go down is this exchange of words: A "One Ring. Pass turn" N "Bolt; going to untap" A "Can't, protection." N "Bolt was in response to the trigger. You tried to shortcut past it, I interrupted it." A "You didn't say that" N "Literally just did while clarifying the play." The only reason the end step is relevant is because of the convention that casting an instant after an opponent says 'end turn' but before you untap is understood to mean it is happening in the end step; however, in this situation, since the trigger does not say 'may', I can't see any reason not to assume that both players are aware that the trigger would prevent the bolt from happening after the trigger resolves, and that Nick is attempting to play the Bolt (and then shortcut to going to his turn) in the latest window of opportunity in which that play would be legal. I feel like it might be a reasonable thing to consider a better regulation for things like this; the general assumption should be that players are making legal plays whenever possible - If a person plays an instant or activates an ability in response to someone declaring a shortcut, and does not specify at what timing that action happened, it should be assumed to happen at the last legal opportunity available for it to be played, assuming there is a legal opportunity for it to be played. In the 'Pass turn; Bolt, untap" exchange, this defaults to the extremely common situation of casting during End step (the last legal point at which to cast a spell before untapping), and then shortcutting proceeding to one's turn (which the other player can, of course, interrupt by responding to Bolt, as usual, etc). Since, ultimately, there was a legal place within Alice's shortcut for the spell to be played, it should be assumed that Nick was playing at the last legal opportunity during that shortcut, unless he explicitly states that he is allowing that opportunity to pass, rather than merely implying it through a convention of regulations. The rules know that there is a legal opportunity for Lightning Bolt to happen somewhere between "I cast One Ring" and "The start of your next turn", so the regulations should not prevent Nick from using that opportunity unless he explicitly says it has passed, or he does something that implicitly could only be done after it passed. (For example, if the Ring was cast in Alice's Main 1, and then Nick were to cast Angelic Favor, a spell which can only be cast during combat, perhaps in some plan to use the Angel Token for some other purpose before end of turn, then there would be no confusion that the timing to respond to the Ring's trigger would have long passed. At that point, if he then tried to Bolt during end step, and Alice were to claim the trigger prevented it, and it were still the case that this was the first time that trigger would have been relevant to the game state that turn, then he would be out of luck and have to rewind the Bolt without any recourse to casting it earlier in the turn, since he had done other things during that gap that implicitly required the opportunity to have passed.)
I think this would be a fix that feels good sometimes, for intention sake. But I don't think this would be healthy design-wise. It would lead to the situation where after someone says pass in Second Main, responses could be interrupted to take place anytime between responding to the last ability / cast all the way to the end step. There would be 3 distinct points of priority in that period. Being concise even if acknowledging a trigger that doesn't require verbalization makes sense. As a player I always vocalize, in response or "before that". I feel like its pretty similar to wishing to take an action during upkeep.
Another way to think about this is that by simply stating "Bolt" here, Nick acknowledges the full previous statement, including "pass turn." If Nick intends to dispute any part of Amy's statement, which would be the case here, her should specify, with at least something like "Bolt in response, going to uptap" or "Bolt before pass turn/endstep/etc, going to untap," making it clear he intends the "pass turn" statement to not occur before the bolt.
@@Kharsonist At the same time I don't think it's ever a good thing if a shortcut passes over the moment when a player would naturally wish to do something. This is why the old combat shortcut was so terrible (the one where you could say something perfectly clear like "I'd like to pass priority in my main phase and go to beginning of combat" and if the opponent didn't respond you'd be in the declare attackers step having missed any beginning of combat triggers). If it's illegal to cast a spell in a certain phase, it shouldn't be assumed to be the time when Nick is casting it.
The correct ruling should be that Amy shouldn't have to say "I AM NOW CASTING THE ONE RING! THE ONE RING HAS RESOLVED! I NOW HAVE PROTECTION FROM EVERYTHING UNTIL NEXT TURN!"
That isn't how it works though. After the one ring has resolved, the trigger goes onto the stack awaiting resolution, at which point players receive priority in turn order.
@@Arcticsharpshooterexactly but do you have to announce every step? Nick should’ve said something like “I’m casting lightning bolt in response to your one ring triggering” when the one ring came into play. Either that or played it in response to the one ring being cast. Once Amy announced “I end my turn” Nick needed to say “wait, I wanted to play something in response to your ring triggering” (assuming no other cards had been played in between the ring and the end step). By accepting that it was the end step, Nick gave up his window to respond.
@@Arcticsharpshooter - it's called paying attention to the damn game. Shit like this happens all the time and goes by. This is just bullshit rules lawyering and bad rules from WotC. What we're being told is that Amy should have to do what I said in my original response, and if a judge or player ever pulled any shit like that with me, I would do exactly that. I would announce every. single. aspect. of what was going on.
I wonder, if Alice says “I play Ring and pass the turn”, and Nick says “In response to The One Ring resolving I cast Lightning Bolt in my first priority after this”. Does this work for Nick? I assume Alice will be confused and be reminded of the One Ring’s trigger, but it should still work timing wise?
I had this situation come up in a MH3 prerelease. My opponent played Ophiomancer and passed the turn. I continued with my turn, past my upkeep and he didn't make a snake. So I went to combat and asked them "you have one blocker right?" to confirm that they missed the trigger without pointing it out directly.
You weren’t even required to do that Creating a snake already counts as a visible effect on the game state. If you made it to combat without them putting a snake on the battlefield, then the trigger was already missed
A: "One ring, pass turn." N: "Nope, no pass turn, I'm not passing. Bolt you for 3." A: "Protection." N: "Still on the stack, said I didn't pass priority." A: "JUDGE!?" Ruling? And if Amy hadn't caught the trigger would Nick be able to use that to argue for a missed trigger next turn? Basically can Nick refuse to allow the turn to pass to end step while still keeping the game in that vague state where the trigger hasn't been confirmed to have resolved?
What you are referring to is the correct way to bypass the poe. But Nick in this case isn't looking to play to bypass the trigger. He tries to bring Amy in a situation where it seems as if she had forgotten the trigger itself. So he can do all the harm he wants (like attacking or whatever). It is a common behaviour unfortunatelly of players who try to "cheat by the rules. That is why I am glad that the ruling states you only have to mentoin a triggered ability whenever it first come relevant. Otherwise scammy Nick here would have get away with this. I hope this makes sense.
As per Magic Tournament Rules, it does not work for Nick. It is stated that tournament shortcuts "define a default communication; if a player wishes to deviate from these, they should be explicit about doing so". Nick wasn't EXPLICITLY stating that he is playing bolt in response to the spell or trigger, thus, we apply shortcut where he is acting in the end step. And as Amy has acknowledged protection, we just rewind the bolt, state that "you are in the Amy's end step" and move on.7
@@RibusPQR That could've meant a lot of things: 1) Not passing prio in response to the ring 2) Not passing prio in response to the ring's trigger 3) Not passing prio in Amy's main phase 4) Not passing prio in Amy's end step Tournament shortcuts exist exactly for such type of situations, to prevent shady wordy plays. As Nick did not explicitly state in what moment he is acting, we are assuming by default that he is acting in the end step.
@@ZaalbarjediWouldn't "I'm not passing priority" be default mean not passing priority at all? And be explicit enough that it cannot go to the end step because going to the end step requires *at least* passing priority in the main phase with empty stack.
What would happen if Nick said something like "in your main phase, cast Lightning Bolt"? Awknowledging that he does not want to do it at the end step, but making it vague whether this was done with the trigger on the stack, or at the end of the main phase before the end step.
I guess that depends on what Amy responds with. If she points out she has protection from The One Ring, Nick can say it's in response to the trigger. If Amy just takes the damage without asking if Nick is trying to cast the bolt in response to the trigger, I believe Nick can argue that the trigger was missed.
In any case, why are we even considering the dishonesty of Nick as acceptable? All games including MTG need to weed out such play patterns as going against not only the spirit of the game but basic human sincerity.
Very likely would be ruled that NIck let resolve entire stack (so triggered ability of ring) and held priority in main step once Amy wanted to pass. Since he used formulation in your main phase not in response. Casting instant in main phase is perfectly fine nothing against it,
Yup. I play in Legacy, and even at LGS "tournaments" (we never went past 20 players in the last 6 years) I basically always call all the phases and triggers of my cards even if I do nothing (for example: Aether Vial at the upkeep, even if I don't plan to increase the counters; or I don't plan to attack but don't shortcut to the end of the turn right away, I declare attackers if I have a creature that could attack; obviously if there is no trigger, activation or attack possible I quickly go through the phases); often turn my card to let them read it if they look even a little perplexed at it (I play Goblins, it wasn't a common deck even if it is one of the oldest, so many players still don't know the cards); and ask "Réponse?" ("an answer?" in French) or wait a few seconds so they have an opportunity to interrupt my play if they wish; and clearly pass the priority when I'm done. And I always audibly or visibly declare when I don't want to act when they play their spells (saying "ok" or nodding), saying "wait" or lifting my finger when I need to think of a counterplay or actually play something. Like, if I play against a deck I know doesn't play any kind of blue card, I won't stop between each spell for a Force of Will, but if they have mana available I always give them some time to answer. My actions are because of previous opponents: a few times I played against opponents that chain cards without pause (usually combo decks), some times not even letting me the opportunity to cut in by playing like two non-instant cards at the same time, and when I say I wanted to play something in response to the first spell, some dare say I missed the timing (obviously that didn't pass with the judge at the SCG: Open tournament a guy tried that); other times because other players actually missed their timing and wanted to prevent for example my beginning-of-combat trigger even after I clearly declared I went to combat and they acquiesced...; and a few times against Lands, I activated my Vial at 3, asked the player if they have an answer, and when they said no, I put a Magus of the Moon in play, and THEN a few said they wanted to tap their nonbasic land for green mana to cast a Crop Rotation. Nope my dude, you had to play it in response to the activation of the Vial, not the resolution, I even explicitly gave you the opportunity to do so. On the other side, I won't remind them of things they either don't know or forgot that would disadvantage me. For example, many players don't know that the ability of _____ Goblin (colloquially named Mind Goblin or Name Sticker Goblin, from Unfinity) CAN be interrupted by removal: if Mind Goblin is not in play at the resolution of its effect, I won't gain any mana and no sticker will leave my sticker sheet (I'd so like to have them the MtGO errata instead of stickers, but oh well). So even if they could have Bolted it (or any other removal), I don't tell them that part of the rule... I will give them an opportunity to react if they so wish, but if they don't I won't tell them they can destroy it to prevent me from gaining mana... I didn't want to play like that, I originally was very lenient at the beginning of my tournament plays, but many players abused that: many combo players think Magic is a one-player game, or some control players think they can react to everything at any time... Nope, not anymore. Sorry for the rant 😅
Opponent: this triggers and you lose a life Me: I have protection from everything Opponent: it doesn't target Me: I still can't get damage Opponent: it says you lose life, you don't take damage. Those are different
missed trigger on the main reason to cast the card seems like something you would only do in bad faith. i know i get protection from everything. you know it as well. I think there's an issue in believability here.
Speaking of announced vs unannounced abilities: if you have a Cavern of Souls naming Bear and you cast a Grizzly Bears using that cavern + forest and don't explicitly mention that you are tapping the cavern for an uncounterable bear - can that bear be countered? I have heard that you need to be explicit about CoS, but I'm not sure how a Judge would resolve this at regular vs comp level.
Needing to be explicit about Cavern of Souls used to be true a long time ago… But they reversed that ruling over 12 years ago to better match the original design intent of the card
A: "Bolt you" B: "I have [pro everything] from the One Ring" A: "You missed that trigger" That's indictment to me that they intended to cast this after the trigger was perceived to be missed, not in response to the trigger.
A: "Bolt you" B: "I have [pro everything] from the One Ring" A: "I was casting it in response" should work for A for both scenarios [testing for missed trigger and damage], no? the only way for B to counteract this is: A: "Bolt you" B: "when do you want to cast it? / whats the timing?" A now has to decide if they want to cast it in response, or to test for a missed trigger. or does this not work because of the assumption of the timing stated in the rules?
not really, no You have to state your intentions clearly while casting the spell (which clearly includes WHEN you cast it) Otherwise, players would be able to fish for information quite easily in a way that wouldn't be healthy for the game. A pretty similar situation would be: NAP has one creature on the board AP: bolt? if NAP doesn't do anything, AP will say they wanted to bolt the creature if NAP does play protection, AP will say they wanted to bolt their face The core issue is the same: AP not stating their actions clearly enough. If you want to, I can search for the relevant mtr, cr and ipg articles :) @@BerniPro
I have one question about a situation that happened at our last Centurion game in LGS. My opponent tutored for Craterhoof, put it into battlefield, attacked, counted damage, I blocked and survived, so he scooped the game (I had lethal next turn). After a while it came to me that he had one more creature on board, that he tapped for ability earlier that turn and moved it to his lands (we both missed it then when counting the creatures). With that he had lethal. Since we are playing for fun and he is a new player, I let him win that game. But I am still curious what would be the correct ruling at a competitive level?
@@stigmaoftheroseCraterhoof Behemoth gives +X/+X and trample where X is the number of creatures you control. They missed one creature so X should have been 1 higher, winning the game
A trigger that is not a may should always be completed according to the cards and information and recalculated. A good player and an honest play should be one and the same.
Under normal circumstances I believe it would be a 'failure to maintain game state' warning for _both_ of you; once the trigger resolves I believe it's on the two of you to correctly calculate what X should be. No idea what the fix would be, but I'd wager the game goes to your opponent since he conceded _after_ damage, which isn't a possible action given he should've already won at that point. HOWEVER, you mentioned oppo had stacked the creature with a land, which is its own violation (MTR 4.7 states you must keep lands and creatures clearly separated at all times), so in your story I'd bet oppo cops 2 warnings (one for layout, another for game state), and you don't get any given that you can't be expected to account for a creature that isn't where it should be.
Good video! Just a quick comment that I do dislike how as time goes by more and more and more text are on cards/mechanics that wizards puts out. Do you find that as time has gone by you get more judge calls based on long wordy card texts?
I'm coming to dislike the missed trigger exception. It was created in the beginning to solve the frequent mistake of forgetting your trigger but it has become so known. It just feels unsportsmanlike to try to get your opponent in a situation where they miss a trigger. Players purposefully avoid maintaing the correct game state and can make even games with low stakes feel too adversarial. The worst moments i feel like when an opponent refuses to clarify how big their goyf was or casting lots of spells in quick succesion to overwhelm and "chalice check". This mentality of "i don't have to help you" so often extends to where players are actually breaking rules. I'm a TO and have seen situations where a player does not correct an opponent when they miscalculated damage because it was lower than the correct amount. That is actually cheating but they didn't know that because it feels just like when you don't remind about a trigger.
I agree. I understand why you can't give warnings/penalties to a player for missing triggers on their opponent's board, but it doesn't feel right to see a trigger getting missed and not say anything. It feels like the player seeing the opponent's missed trigger and not saying anything is failing to maintain the game state, and is actually cheating by refusing to mention said trigger.
@@Registeel1234 yeah I fully agree too. I like to believe that I would always help my opponents to maintain correct gamestate and triggers if I ever notice it. I want the game to be played trough cards and effects, not slyness and metastrategies. I also heard that in yugioh, gamestate is more sacred and missed triggers cause warningsfor both players, not the just the controller. is that true?
I disagree. Skill and knowledge of the cards and interactions, and awareness of it all is part of the game, and when it comes to *competitive* play it should remain completely valid to not help your opponent. We're playing against our opponents, not for them after all.
@@jinxed7915 you're forgetting about the game state. We're playing the game with strict rules and that game machine constantly underlying the table. Not a game of bluff like poker. Imagine you're paying online with a game engine where it's impossible to miss a trigger.
To make the game faster, you assume the opponent has no response to the prowess trigger and don't announce it every single time you cast a spell (as long as you remember exactly what the stats should be)
I had almost this exact thing happen except it was with an attacker on the opponents turn. Attacking a player with protection is allowed, but then that player takes no damage. What, if any, part of that action can be rewound? We ended up agreeing to undo the attack because it was a casual game, but in a higher stakes event, what is the official policy?
In a competitive game the attack would still happen. Maybe the opponent is attacking planning on the protected player to not block, and in response eliminate said protection leading to a lot of damage. Or the player might have some ability / spell that requires that they attack with a certain number of creatures. Protection doesn't prevent the player from being attacked, it just reduces damage dealt to zero, so there's no rule violation to rewind to fix.
The attack wouldn't be rewound; the damage would just be prevented. It's legal to attack a player with protection from everything. I actually saw this come up last weekend in legacy. Show and Tell player attacked One Ring player with an Emrakul. They didn't take 15 damage, but they still had to sac 6 permanents.
Furthermore there are cards that prevents preventing damage, such as questing beast. Sinca can´t beat can. You can damage opponent with protection, same is true for spells that arent targeting.
Hi! To all my rules hounds out there, i have a deck altering question for you. I'm workshopping a deck for "Hinata, Dawn-Crowned" and am curious if Hinata's _spells you cast cost (1) less to cast for each target_ applies to creatures with casting effects that target. Such as "Elder Deep-Fiend" _when you cast this spell, tap up to four target permanents_
I don't believe it gives reduction since it's a triggered ability using the clause "when you cast this spell". So the targets are for the triggered ability and not the spell itself. I think mutate does target though?
Was aware of this ruling, but what about a slightly different scenario. Beginning is the same, Amy resolves the one ring but doesn’t announce the trigger. During his turn Nick pitch cast Grief. Grief resolves and he chooses to target amy with the etb. At this point Amy demonstrates awareness of the trigger. This happenend during a modern FNM the other day, and honnestly i don’t know how i would handle this during a competitive tournament. Technically only grief’s ability was illegal, so the pitch cast should not be rewind. Yet it feels like with this fix Amy would gain a huge advantage by not properly communicating with her opponent. Not exactly rule sharking but nonetheless not the kind of behavior i want to encourage.
It is unfortunate that the rings ability is a triggered ability and not (as some would assume) an ongoing effect. Then this kind of ruling wouldn't be necessary or even possible.
At comp REL, everything is absolutely legal until Grief's targeting, so only it is rewound. At regular REL at FNM, I can see that judge would rewind grief casting as well, but it depends on how the players would describe the situation.
So if you play a bolt and they allow it and don't remember the protection trigger, then you can target and damage them as if they don't have protection, and even if they should have protection they don't because they didn't remind you when you bolted?
Correct, as by allowing the Bolt to fly unhindered you have implicitly acknowledged lacking Protection, meaning you missed the trigger on the Ring that would have granted it, and you don't get to walk that back later in the turn and go "Wait actually" after the Bolt is done and resolved Obvs playgroup/REL level withstanding
I have a question about the card Archon of Absolution, which, in my opinion, it doesnt specify very well how it works. Many people think it’s like a Ghostly Prison on a body, but actually, I dont think it is. As I understand it, the Archon stops the opponent completely from attacking unless he pays 1 mana for every single creature he CONTROLS, not for every single creature THAT IS DECLARED ATTACKING, like Ghostly Prison does. Am i wrong?
Hi! I know a few days passed from your comment, but I just wanted to give you an answer. The Archon has a very similar effect to Ghostly Prison in that the player who wants to attack you has to pay {1} for each attacking creature. The ability is worded in a peculiar way but "those creatures" at the end of the ability refers to the creature that are attacking you/a planeswalker you control. Baird, Steward of Argive and Archangel of Tithes have the same effect. Hope it helped!
Am I missing something its a ETB trigger that's not a active effect trigger (like putting counters on something as it ETB). How does that ever miss the trigger?
I have a related question regarding the One Ring which I feel is also a very relevant scenario to consider, and that is "what happens when someone casts the One Ring and acknowledges the trigger, but play continues in one or more ways as if they didnt have protection from everything?" Having played with the ring in paper a decent bit now, this scenario seems to be at least as likely as the situation in this video. Example, if I'm playing against legacy burn and I am enchanted with a Maddening Hex, and I cast the One Ring and announce the trigger but the Maddening Hex stays in play, what happens? I've successfully acknowledged the trigger at the exact time it triggered and resolved in rhe abstract sense, but i failed to acknowledge the effect it would have on the game. Would that still be considered a missed trigger? And follow-up, what if in the last scenario I *didnt* acknowledge the trigger on resolution, and instead, cast the One Ring then cast Ponder (leaving the Hex attached) while my opponent controlled an Eidolon of the Great Revel, then announced the Eidolon triggers damage was prevented because i have protection from everything?
Announcing the trigger does not mean that it cannot be missed. By definition "Missed Trigger - 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.". So, in both cases the first time that the trigger would affect the game in a visible fashion is immediately after trigger resolution when the curse should be put into graveyard. By failing to do that it is assumed that you have missed the trigger.
@Zaalbarjedi I guess my question would be then, "what qualifies as acknowledging a trigger then, if announcing it out loud does not count?" I would assume that this would fall somewhere into the Game Rule Violation/Failure to Maintain Game State area, as it is clear that the player knew they had a triggered ability (since they announced it), but they failed to follow the game rules afterward (by letting the enchantment stay attached to them). And as a side note, what would happen if the player announced their trigger, and did immediately put the Hex in the graveyard, but then when they cast the Ponder, their opponent announces the Eidolon trigger, and they take the two? Surely THIS can't be a missed trigger, right? Like, at a certain point, what would normally be a missed trigger has to become a GRV or similar, right?
@@sgjuxta acknowledging that the trigger triggered does not assume that you have acknowledged that it resolved. I.E. you have creature with prowess, cast some noncreature spell and say "prowess", then later in combat when damage occurs you calculated damage as if creature did not have +1/+1. This would be ruled as a missed trigger by judge. Although, it MAY depends on the wording that both players use. I haven't judge for a long time so unfortunately I cannot tell with 100% sure about this particular case. In second case, this is clearly GRV, as by putting the curse in the graveyard you have acknowledged that the trigger had resolved.
Can you do a similar video for Rhystic Study and Smothering Tithe to teach the players who believe they don't have to ask you to pay, and think that it's the other players that need to remember for them. The official ruling about RS and ST is that the controller of the enchantment must ask each time those enchantment triggers their opponents to pay and if they don't they shouldn't draw or create a treasure later. Remembering one’s trigger is always the responsibility of the player who controls the ability. This is usually, but not always, the controller of the object that has the ability. It doesn’t matter that the triggered ability may allow an opponent to take an optional action. The controller of the trigger, whether it’s a may or must ability, is responsible for remembering it and prompting the opponent to make a choice. Players are never responsible for remembering their opponent’s triggers. Players are allowed to remain quiet about triggers controlled by an opponent being missed, even if the triggered ability would do something harmful or help its controller in those examples. Other players should not be punished even in casual games for the inabilities, lack of focus or poor memories of their opponents because they are playing not so casual cards. Why might a player want to remind an opponent of their triggered ability? It’s possible that the trigger might benefit themselves more than their opponent or it might inconvenience their opponent so reminding them makes sense. In the case of the first 3 cards mentioned, drawing later or creating a treasure later in a game is a lack of respect towards your opponents and has a big impact on the resources obtained for yourself and spent by your opponents. Remembering one’s trigger is always the responsibility of the player who controls the ability. This is usually, but not always, the controller of the object that has the ability. It doesn’t matter that the triggered ability may allow an opponent to take an optional action. The controller of the trigger, whether it’s a may or must ability, is responsible for remembering it and prompting the opponent to make a choice. Players are never responsible for remembering their opponent’s triggers. Players are allowed to remain quiet about triggers controlled by an opponent being missed, even if the triggered ability would do something harmful or help its controller in those examples. Other players should not be punished even in casual games for the inabilities, lack of focus or poor memories of their opponents because they are playing not so casual cards. Why might a player want to remind an opponent of their triggered ability? It’s possible that the trigger might benefit themselves more than their opponent or it might inconvenience their opponent so reminding them makes sense. In the case of the first 3 cards mentioned, drawing later or creating a treasure later in a game is a lack of respect towards your opponents and has a big impact on the resources obtained for yourself and spent by your opponents.
A flicker, blink, or other temp-Exile effect does not recast the permanent, and doing so resets the object, it does not retain a "was cast" quality or anything like counters
Amy stating "I'll play the One Ring and pass turn" in one sentence, seems to leave no room for responses. If I was Nick, I'd have said "Woah, before the end step, bolt you". As this is not in the end-step I would like to know if this would've constituted a missed trigger or not? And if Amy stated that this would be invalid due to the One Ring trigger, whether this wording from Nick would be accepted as in response to the One Ring trigger or not? i.e. do you explicitly have to use the words "in response to _ trigger"
if Amy says "I play The One Ring and pass," Nick can just say "wait, in response to the ring, I'll bolt you" if he wants to get the bolt in *and* still not remind Amy of her trigger.
This s enario goes to show 2 things: 1. Missing mandatory triggers is very silly and shouldn't be part of the game at any REL the way it is now. 2. The ruling concenring when triggers need to be acknowledged doesn't actually work in all the scenarios it's applied. Determining power/toughness when relevant is one thing but protection actually changes what actions one player can make. This is *always* relevant. Assuming Nick has no knowledge or angle on the situation he basically got baited into revealing a card from his hand to Amy because she did not acknowledge a change to the game state that is relevant to what actions he could take. I don't disagree with the ruling based on how the rules are written at present but to me this is a clear case where the rule should be expanded/modified to actually line up with the reality of play.
Everyone knows Wood Elemental. I probably would've just got that one out of the way first. I don't know how they ever thought that could be good. Like... Am I playing it as a 4 of in a deck with all forests and land ramp? They really screwed it up. It's the most notoriously bad card, but I'm glad there were some in here I've never seen
Or how about we stop catering the those who want to cheat, acknowledge that all triggers that are not a may did what the card says, which is how the game, any game, should work, and uphold both gameplay and integrity?
Amy never "failed to recognize" it, she pointed it out as soon as it was relevant to the boardstate. that's literally what the first part of this ruling is about.
I understand that people are human and we make mistakes and forget things and, sometimes rewinding back to a certain game state is impossible (or unfair) BUUUT the thing I hate most about this is that playing a card should always have the intended effects. I think it should be on both players to acknowledge and execute each card/effect in it's entirety. This isn't a problem with most casual play, but in competitive play, being able to gain an advantage because of poor communication isn't good sportsmanship in my opinion. Also, everything said, I personally don't experience things like this or participate in events where this type of REL affects me. It's just disheartening to the spirit of the game.
Strictly adhering to the example in this video, Nick should be able to resolve the bolt. Otherwise, you are literally allowing Amy to circumvent Nick's priority while TOR is on the stack and after it resolves but when the trigger would be on the stack. That means anyone can just say "Cast The One Ring and pass." And no one can respond at all. Ultimately I think you got the right ruling, but for the wrong reasons. Players are entitled to their priority at every point in the game.
no? you can always say "wait, in reaponse to _____" - but Nick didn't say that. if Nick had said "in response to the trigger, bolt you," (or even "in response to the ring, bolt you" if he still wants to give Amy the 'opportunity' to miss her trigger), it would have been fine.
this reminds me of the pithing needle naming "Borborygmos" both players knew he ment Borborygmos Enraged which the other player was playing but the other player called a judge and said because he said "Borborygmos" and not "Borborygmos Enraged" and Borborygmos is a legal card name he could still use Borborygmos enraged. the judges ruled in favor of the Borborygmos player.later rules were added to cover this saying as long as both players understand what card is being named the full name does need to be said
It seems like the most technical way for Nick to thread this needle is to say something like "in response to your change of phases, bolt you". This phrasing specifically doesn't acknowledge the missed trigger, while also side-stepping the default assumption that this is happening on end step.
However, it does not allow Nick to then cast it in response to the trigger since he's casting it in response to the change of phases (which can't happen while something is on the stack)
this video leaves a bad taste in my mouth, with the one ring not being a may trigger its hard to see how its missed? I get why the ruling for missed trigger exist but being able to test that for free seems to good, for the player casting bolt they cant lose in this situation, when they cast it either the other player remembers and the bolt just goes back to hand or you get to nullify it all together if they forget idk, seems like a bad play pattern and leads to bad games and lots of judge calls.
Tricky ruling, very cool! I wonder if the one ring was deliberately made powerful/busted so they could cast it into the fires of mount doom by banning it. I also think it's a massive flavour win that Into The Core beats The One Ring's indestructibility
I don't get how you can "miss" a trigger. If a trigger requires me to sacrifice something, whose responsibility is it to "remember" what the game unquestionably dictates should happen? If a player forgets to act on an optional trigger, that's of course their own fault, but I don't see why an opponent should get to exploit the fact that the obvious wasn't stated.
You can miss a trigger if you don’t acknowledge it the first time it has a visible effect on the game. If you intentionally ignore your trigger, that’s cheating
Having Protection from everything until your next turn is a very important trigger that should be announced/acknowledged immediately instead of waiting till it is "relevant" to the visible game state.
If it doesn't even affect game-state it can't be that important. Its importance only comes up if it does affect and that is when it needs to be acknowledged.
