“Ok guys, we finally did it! We have a specific ruling for every single possible infraction and in-game question! It’s a million pages long!” [a new set comes out] “Doggonit!”
I love the daily ruling format and hope you never change it. Having said that, these longer videos that discuss some broader policies are way more interesting to me as a tournament grinder who already has a good grasp of the rules
I like the longer form content too, but I feel like it takes too much time to produce for me to do it much more regularly. Once or twice a month is fine, but these sort of videos take exponentially longer than my normal ones, so I'm glad people appreciate them!
If the RIP player had assumed that, it would have meant that they had seen the movement happen, and they would have raised an objection to the card being immediately returned to the graveyard. Because they didn't make that objection, it must be assumed that they didn't see what their opponent was doing, and therefore they could not have assumed the trigger was being acknowledged. If the RIP player could reasonably have observed the card being moved fully away but not the card being moved back-for example, if there was some more significant delay between the two-then they might have an argument that they had seen the trigger being honored, taking that as an acknowledgment of the trigger, and then things get tricky. You're essentially arguing the other player used slight of hand to fake out the RIP player into thinking the trigger was being acknowledged when it wasn't. I think that's hard to prove and therefore hard to enforce. I would almost find it more reasonable to say that the RIP player had difficulty seeing the graveyard hiding behind the other person's library and made a good faith assumption that it had been emptied, which gets into issues of good faith, sportsmanship, and layout of the play space but isn't necessarily a rules item except insofar as layout of the play space is concerned.
Dredge players are the worst. If you've never played Dredge, trying to make sure they're playing correctly if you think they're making mistakes is a nightmare. And that's nothing compared to if they actively want to cheat.
04:23 The misconception regarding "mandatory trigger", I suspect, is related to the handling of "may" triggers at Regular REL. Relevant JAR passage : > A player forgets a triggered ability (one that uses the words “when,” “whenever,” or “at the beginning”, usually at the start of the ability's text) These abilities are considered missed if the player did not acknowledge the ability in any way at the point that it required choices or had a visible in-game effect. If the ability includes the word “may,” assume the player chose not to perform it. Otherwise, put the ability on the stack unless you think it would be too disruptive - don’t add it to the stack if significant decisions have been made based on the effect not happening! Unlike other illegal actions (which must be pointed out), players may choose whether or not to point out their opponent's missed triggers.
I think it's a combination of factors. In addition to the one you mentioned, there's also the fact that other games handle analogous situations differently and that Magic's own Missed Trigger policy has changed several times, including an iteration where it did work somewhat the same way.
Stuff like this crap is why I would NEVER touch Competitive REL with a 50-foot pole. Just way too many grody players out there. I want to win with both players’ cards doing what they are supposed to do, just like they would on Arena.
As a judge, Arena is just the superior way to play fair Magic. All I see in tournaments is people who have very little understanding of the game's rules, but exceptionally adept when it comes to dancing on the thin line that separates fair play from rule sharking in order to gain a minor advantage 😂 I swear if most players focused on the rules instead, they would perform way better
DDR#651 = Resolve your opponents triggers quickly before they say anything. When they think that it was resolved, place the cards back into their correct area and Profit!
I think the bigger question to ask, "do i want to become a better player, or a better person?" Losing to the "worse" player, quite the interesting mindset of either lifting others up, dragging them down, or keeping them down. Humility is how I notice is what is a mark of the better player, and ones that able to continue to grow.
Humility is absolutely not a requirement for being a good player. In every game, not just Magic, the top ranks include players who are pretty arrogant due to the fact that they're better then most others.
The problem with communication is always that you give something away what you want to do or what you have, as otherwise why ask some questions. Its unavoidable in some cases or the preferred way, but it still has some issues that some player has a disadvantage for asking the questions.
The example with the Meddling Mage sounds like there's an egregious problem with the rule! If it's not a triggered ability and can be fixed at any time later, there would be no reason for a Meddling Mage player to ever name a card unless their opponent demands it. It now reads 'name the next spell you don't like whenever you want, even if it's already been cast, and reverse time to prevent it'. Based on the other comments this is called angle shooting and wouldn't be against the rules?
Not naming anything with Meddling Mage with the intention of naming a card later is definitely still cheating. It would also be pretty suspicious since naming a card is pretty much all you do with Meddling Mage so I doubt you could get away with it.
I feel like it should be fine to rewind the gamestate in the first example independent of intent because nothing meaningful has changed between the trigger and the RIP player noticing. The rule is meant to avoid sloppy play, but no actions were taken, no information revealed, the only thing that passed was time. If the game needed to be stopped for any other reason the same outcome would happen. "But what about the untapped lands?" What about them? Mana abilities can be reversed as long as nothing has changed the game state and in fact *have to* be if something illegal happens. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that if nothing has changed about the game state, no information has been revealed, and no choices have been made, you can rewind the game state from the untap step. Note, I don't think this should happen if anything happened in the end step or clean up, or if the player who mentioned it wasn't the RIP's owner. In the second scenario I just want to ask, what would be the issue with needing to declare triggers when they trigger? You could even split it so triggers that come from passing the turn need this to happen but triggers from player actions don't. Lastly, I think there needs to be something in the rules that basically says "so much has happened here there is no reasonable way this player is asking a judge for a good faith reason." You see this a lot in clips. In the True Name Nemesis clip, in the iconic Borborygmus-Pithing Needle clip, in the "move to combat" missed trigger, etc. In all of them you have been playing like something was correct for many turns or many minutes and a question amounts to "can I play like my opponent made this insanely unreasonable choice?" The onus should be on you to clarify because if were sincerely confused, you would've asked.
I think that the RIP situation and the shrine of burning rage are different. Shrine requires that you mark it yourself. RIP is something that requires the other player to cooperate to resolve as you're not picking up their graveyard and moving up. Shrine of burning rage is also something you must recall as it is on the field. RIP is an etb. When the RIP player played it, it wasn't that he missed the trigger. It was that he didn't verbally say it or shove it directly in the direction of his opponent's gy. To me, what the dredge player has done is see a place where he could possibly get away with purposely fudging the board state and maybe the rules would technically side with him. In spirit, this is cheating. In actuality, he either illegally exiled his card and then put it back also illegally or resolved RIP, understanding the implied trigger and after that is proceeding to illegally move his card back. Basically, he's purposely misunderstanding a clearly implied trigger with the intent to mess up the board state in his favor. What makes a trigger clearly implied? Well, it was clear enough that he moved the card in the first place at the very least.
Him moving the card doesn’t mean that the trigger was “clearly implied”, it just means that he noticed the trigger before realizing that his opponent had missed it. Nothing about what the rip player did implied that he remembered the trigger at all.
@@OceanicBacon This is from IPG 2.1. "Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately apparent. Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered not only by both the player and opponent, but also by any judges watching the match. By failing to acknowledge a triggered ability by when it would first matter, the player effectively disproves this assumption. This sentence also answers the question of “How can I tell if my opponent missed their exalted trigger?” You are to assume it happened until you have evidence that it didn’t. This is an important point. Just as you can acknowledge a trigger happened earlier than required, you can also indicate the trigger didn’t happen earlier than required. For example, if you untap with a Kragma Butcher and say nothing indicating the trigger, it is assumed to be a 4/3. However, the controller can indicate earlier than combat damage that they forgot the trigger. Attacking with an Ensnaring Bridge on the battlefield might indicate its trigger was missed. Answering “what’s that creature’s power?” with “it’s a 2/3” is an indication it was missed." From this, the rules are quite explicit. The opponent should assume that the trigger is remembered until otherwise indicated. The controlling player did not have to do anything on his side to resolve the RIP. If he failed to exile his own gy, that would have demonstrated that the trigger had been missed. This did not happen. Yes, he missed that his opponent moved the card back. However, this shouldn't have been the situation to begin with because by the rule that "You are to assume it happened until you have evidence that it didn't". So the opponent, who is supposed to assume that the trigger did occur, at first did but then put it back intentionally without clear evidence that the trigger was missed. Thus he is purposely creating an inaccurate board state in an attempt to benefit himself which we call cheating.
@@NevarKanzaki The difference is that Kragma Butcher becoming a 4/3 doesn’t affect the visible game state immediately, but rip exiling graveyards does. So “when it would first matter” for the butcher is when it deals combat damage or attacks through a bridge, but for rip it is when it enters the battlefield. If my opponent attacks with a butcher and I mark 2 damage, and my opponent doesn’t say anything, then the trigger is missed, in the same way as if you don’t exile your graveyard when a rip enters and they say nothing.
@@OceanicBacon I would say that that would be an argument if the opponent never exiled anything, waiting for the trigger which never came. However, that's not what happened here. Yes, the example in the rules is a not immediately apparent trigger. However, it doesn't only apply to only triggers that aren't immediately apparent otherwise it'd read as "triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated if the impact of the game state is not immediately apparent". Wording it as and and not if means inclusive, not dependent on. If your opponent attacks with butcher under bridge, I don't think you should be marking 2 damage. You should be calling a judge because your opponent missed their mandatory trigger. It isn't that the burden falls completely to the opponent to remember the trigger. What happened here is that the RIP player forgot the trigger. His opponent acknowledged the trigger earlier than required, then thought he could slip one by the rules so he moved it back which is now purposely creating an inaccurate board state. I think that once you acknowledge it with an action, it is very much in the spirit of cheating to unacknowledge it and change the game state for your benefit. This would be different from seeing that your opponent didn't remember the trigger and not moving anything at all. The rules erring this way supports everyone moving in good faith. Allowing for changing things after the fact doesn't hold any benefit if you're expecting both players to move in good faith, only benefiting the event where a player might wish to exploit the rules to his advantage. What's the worst thing that happens from making this assumption? Well, is that some players who was inattentive caught a break. The burden still isn't entirely on the opponent to remember the trigger because the option to not acknowledge it when the opponent missed it didn't happen is still a thing. I'd say the point of the rules is to protect good, upstanding players and to not make it cumbersome on the players. Allowing a player to unacknowledge something and misrepresent the board state doesn't protect good, upstanding players as that's pretty scummy and it doesn't do anything to make good, honest gameplay any smoother. The only one it benefits are those looking to exploit the rules as much as possible. In other words, people who in spirit wish to cheat if they can get away with it. Unless there's a good reason that a player needs to be able to do this to promote, good, honest play, I don't think there's any benefit at all to allowing the unacknowledging.
Is that era over? That seems like it could still be a cheeky way to get your opponent to miss their upkeep triggers, unless the policy has changed to make it not work anymore
@@OceanicBacon Players are more aware of the trick, and it worked better when everyone was playing Vendilion Clique, but you could maybe do it now? I certainly don’t see it anymore.
If someone tried pulling that RIP bs at a local play group they would HATE playing with me moving forward. I would intentionally never proactively resolve a single triggered effect they ever targeted at me. Every single time I would just ask them what happens, individually in multi target triggers, and then double check to make sure they were satisfied of course. No more ease of play. Because that’s how they expect me to treat them apparently.
How is it decided which area of the board represents the graveyard vs exile? The player even moved their Conflagrate (visibly acknowledging the trigger), so I would've just assumed whichever area the Conflagrate is in *is* the exile zone, since that's the only legal place it can be.
I think it is so unconventional and confusing to leave your graveyard in the same place and (not verbally) say this is exile now that no player could reasonably be thought to interpret the situation in that way
In case #2, would it have been sufficient for the non-active player to ask "pass turn?" before playing the Emperor? To me that would signal that the active player was finished taking actions for the turn, so the stack must be empty in that case.
It seems like a lot of competitive magic players use outside elements not found in rules text like lack of communication as an advantage. Especially when I see them transition into a "friendlier more casual" format like commander. Most don't seem realize they even have to ANNOUNCE a spell as part of how you cast a spell. In commander we tend to read the entire card. It seems they come from an environment where players just turn cardboard sideways ignore priority and drop permanents as quick as possible trying to "hide them" with their hand. Sounds like fun...
What if, in the first example, the RIP player sees the Dredge player exile his card, then writes down his lifetotal and misses his opponent moving the card back? How would that be different from what happened?
When the Rest in Peace player inevitably notices that the card had moved back into the graveyard, he would have asked how that happened, and would almost certainly end up with the Conflagrate being exiled if the opponent tried to contest it.
I dont want magic to just be digital, but the first story in particular makes me feel like all competitive magic should be digital. The game should reward skill and tactics not players getting an advantage for ignoring the text on their opponents cards. From a rules standpoint i understand why it works that way, and I also dont want to go back to the days of repeatedly reminding my opponents of the triggers they missed, but it doesn’t make for good magic when used like this.
This is why there should be deus-ex overrides by the head judges at competitive that can just reverse/restore game actions at a whim. No nonsense, all common sense, none of these cheatyface tricks. Having that level of legal flexibility is a lot like a pardon (except it intervenes)
I think the biggest issue I have with the first story is the RIP player tracking his life which allowed the game to progress with him not noticing. I do think in the standard / modern format though, missing triggers is a bit of a skill issue. It's no where near the level of commander and vintage.
The Amy nick one makes sense to me since Amy is simply trying to short cut and go from second main to end, decline the trigger and pass. Essentially auto pasting. If nick says okay that line happens but what he could have said is that will also pass priority to move to the end step but on the trigger, flash in the thing. It is the same if Amy did this in first main and said pass, meaning no attacks in combat as well.
Here's a question that I just had a discussion about: what is considered proper "Announcing triggers"? To ground the discussion, say I have a Smothering Tithe. How do you remind your opponents? A guy was saying that, as long as the first trigger for Tithe was clearly announced, it's enough to lightly tap the card on subsequent triggers, and if the opponents don't notice it, they are implicitly not paying. They said they got this information from a judge. This seems absurd to me. Is the proper way to announce it verbally?
The correct answer to that question is "whatever you and the other three players at the table agree on". In a tournament context, demonstrating awareness of triggered abilities is what the policy documents specify, but no specific form of awareness is prescribed.
Ok, in that True-Name Nemesis example, if some asshole decides to backtrack and say that you didnt name them, just say that you did but said it quietly so he must have not heard. If they're gonna be that bitchy about weasling advantage based on ambiguity, then you can reflect it right back at them. What are they gonna do, awkwardly ask for audio clips? Gaslight them back.
Lol good luck convincing a judge of that. Not pointing out your opponent’s missed triggers is not gaslighting. I know there were no missed triggers in the true name example, which is why the true name player got away with it, but I certainly hope saying “I mumbled my trigger so you must not have heard” wouldn’t work even if there were
@@OceanicBacon judge is more likely to believe that TNN player just happen to quietly say they named the opposing player (plausible) which is the obvious and only play when even playing that card, as opposed to believing in the super scummy cunty rules-lawyering opposing player that wanted to cheat the rules in their favor on a weird technicality.
@@mynt4033 Lmao spoken like someone who can’t remember their triggers. If it was an actual triggered ability, it’s possible that a judge would believe you if you said that you had mumbled your trigger, but if it wasn’t true then it would be cheating. But sure, they were the scummy one by trying to capitalize on their opponent’s mistake in a competitive event 🙄
Great video! I had a couple of questions: why are triggered abilities the controller's responsibility while replacement abilities are both players' responsibilities? In the second example, if Nick had knowledge of Amy's hand, would you rule differently?
In Brazil we have a meme that quotes "hehe, i took advantage". we use this meme to describe a situation where a person wins barely nothing on advantage like paying with a fake 5 note on market or accepting wrong change because you will gain some cents. To me its sad to see that this meme fits totally fine to competitive magic. This definily is one of the things that makes me dont see a reason to go to an store play with randoms on a tournament night.
I feel bad about opponents missing triggers for the opposite reason to 1:30. I hate that it's competitively correct for me to not remind them, because in the hypothetical ideal state of the game it simply wouldn't be possible to forget (a la mtgo/arena). Ultimately I sit down to play the card game, not to angle-shoot and rules-lawyer my way to a win against someone who's more focused on actual gameplay decisions. It's sad that there's no perfect way to solve the issue of missed triggers/infractions in paper (other than putting an L2 judge at every table lmao), so I stay mostly playin small events in paper and saving the big competition juice for online 🤷♂️
In regards to the 2nd scenario, I feel like the rules could adapt to claiming you are going to end step / acknowledging your end of turn triggers. Saying pass turn with these triggers on stack seems ambiguous. Especially with a "may" trigger. It does make sense here though that if you specifically want to wait until after the trigger resolves you would specify.
Does the policy really need to accommodate people who don't want to remind their opponent of their triggers? That's such petty, unsportsmanlike play. Anyone who would whine about being expected to follow mandatory effects they notice and the opponent doesn't just wants to cheat.
Does it need to? I guess that depends on what criteria you are including in that "need". There's a lot of history in Magic that's shaped the ethos of what is valued in competitive play. That sort of thing should be taken into account when writing policy as well. The desire of tournament players who want to hold people to a higher standard when there are substantial cash prizes on the line is valid too.
If my opponent is playing some legacy paradox engine combo with a dozen or more artifacts in play, is it really reasonable for me to be familiar with every artifact that has been printed in the last 30 years to be able to track my opponents triggers for them? Much more sensible for the person who built the deck to have to do that themselves.
would love a video about how bargain works now that WOE is out. For example, could I cast Back For Seconds with bargain by sacrificing a creature with cmc 4 and bring it back to the battlefield as the spell resolves?
Bargain is fairly simple, it's an optional additional cost for casting a spell, just like Kicker. The thing that matters with this example is how casting spells actually works. You choose the targets then pay the costs. Technically if you tap a mountain then say "bolt that bird", that red mana isn't spent until you've chosen the target (might be wrong about that actually but doesn't really matter). Point is, when you cast Back For Seconds with Bargain, you choose which creature(s) in your graveyard to target before sacrificing for the bargain cost, it won't be in the graveyard as a legal target when you cast the spell and therefore can't have been targeted when the spell resolves. The exact order of spell-casting doesn't really matter though, it basically happens all "at the same time" so don't worry too much about whether you're pointing at cards with Yawgmoth, Thran Physician before or after rolling your dice down and choosing which creature to sacrifice, just make sure to do all three of THOSE before drawing a card :D
The first situation honestly pisses me off, when you play rest in peace it's very obvious what you're doing, you're not forgetting what rest in peace does when you play it. It's common sense to know that the RIP player knows what their card does and why they're casting it, and it's obvious that the player on the left is abusing that subconscious knowledge to cheat. I have never in my entire life seen somebody verbally acknowledge RIP etb trigger, it just seems ridiculous to me.
The first Rest In Peace ruling really irks me as a former ygo judge- in yugioh non optional triggers are called mandatory triggers, and in general, both players are equally responsible for maintaining the gamestate, including mandatory triggers. Optional triggers may be missed, but mandatory triggers must be enforced by both players without fail, nonwithstanding a PE minor, or in the case of the first player, a UC cheating, game loss, and a pe minor to the owner of Rest In Peace. I understand the philosophy behind owners of abilities are the ones to enforce the abilities, but the opponent knew what they needed to do, performed the action, noticed that there was no explicit approval, and then rewound their game action. This is knowingly ignoring a mandatory trigger, which for yugioh is taking advantage of a procedural error. At the worst it’s a game state rewind and we continue with the spell exiled and award both players PE minors. At best, with further investigation should a judge have noticed the entire sequence of events, that would be a UC cheating infraction and would result in a game loss, and a pe minor for the owner of Rest In Peace. If this had happened another time in the event it would have been a disqualification
It's pretty clear cut that the conflagrate player should've gotten a cheating violation. He moved his graveyard to an exile zone and then moved it back. You really can't ignore that as it is the most important part of the interaction. Using the ruling given, players can conufse their opponents and break their own mandatory infinite loop without penalty.
Its a good video and important info, but also this is why i just play casual games with my friends. If we miss something, we fix it best we can. No prizes on the line, no hige stakes.
Yeah, it's gross. I think it should be cheating, not just 'angle shooting'- if you play an Flametongue Kavu and I immediately pick up and move my only creature towards my graveyard I'm obviously acknowledging that the trigger has happened. As far as I'm concerned, at the point the trigger has happened and you're not going to repeat it. It's the sort of thing that should push any serious magic player to play really really slowly to make sure they never let anyone shortcut anything in case their opponent takes it back!
Yeah because he took the action its absolutely angle shooting. If we use the logic from 6:06 "Nothing allows an opponent to just put a card into exile" the opposite is true too. Nothing allows an opponent to remove a card from exile. So he either took one legal action (given the board state) and then an illegal one, or he took 2 illegal ones. And if we say the first action is illegal because "Nothing told him to put conflag into exile", then he has committed a Game Play Error and must raise awareness that he made an illegal state, and then the action he is taking to correct it. You don't just get to slide it under the table because the opponent didn't see it.
i know im late as hell, but doesnt this mean that any non may ability is essentially a may ability in that you could just "forget" to catch the trigger if you didnt want the ability to happen ((say a permanent ETBS with a forced targeting and you dont want to target your own phantasmal image, if your opponent doesnt remind you (or even if they do), whats stopping you from simply moving on without targeting and then any game action later being able to call it a missed trigger))
Despite how arena displays this information, damage doesn't actually reduce a creature's toughness. Instead think of it like, after getting bolted, your Yoked Ox has a little post-it note stuck to it saying "I took three damage this turn"
If you do it by damage from a source with wither or infect, then it works. But if it's just normal damage, then that is not actually toughness reduction.
My issue with the RIP one as far as my understanding goes is that since triggere are assumed to have happened unless otherwise stated, I might assume opponent is just keeping the exile zone as the same position as where the graveyard usually is, and wouldn't say anything unless opponent put something in what looks like a different zone from where the conflagrate is (like placing a card facing a different direction in a different pile)
Triggers are not assumed to have happened, you have to demonstrate knowledge of your triggers by the time that they impact the game state, otherwise they are considered missed
@@OceanicBacon opponent fiddling with GY would make me think they recognized it, and it being recognized as soon as a card hit what appears to be a different zone would count as me acknowledging it when it first impacts the game state
@@gatogelato0037 If the rip player had noticed that the card had been moved then the situation would have been different, but they didn’t see either the move into exile or the move back to the gy
I will agree that losing to a far worse player is a terrible experience. However, I’d rule losing to a shark because you didn’t acknowledge one of your 12 triggers is a worse one and the need to painstakingly announce everything definitely slows down games.
All 3 of these examples are weird angle shooting. Example 2 is the least so, but even then, saying "pass turn" to me means they pass all priorities, even past the enigmatic triggered ability, or else, she would say "pass to end step, enigmatic trigger" Example 1 is pure and blatant angle shooting. Dredge player knew exactly what RIP does, moved to do so, and then pretended like he didn't just because RIP player didn't say the magic word. It's just as much angle shooting as the sheoldred "is the stack empty" play Example 3 is just pithing needle borborygmos with extra steps, which everyone agrees is angle shooting.
Example 2 is less black and white than you might think. Because there was no video, we don’t know if there was any target for enigmatic before hand, and you only sacrifice as the spell resolves. This means that player one and two both needed to pass priority before she gets to sac either way. If both passed priority and the trigger wasn’t mentioned, only then is it safe to assume that nothing was being sacced.
@@OhOnGod enigmatic doesn't target at all, and it's a may. She said "pass turn". If she intended to use it, she should have said "pass to end step, enigmatic trigger". Just that simple. Even if she DID have enchantments, she said "pass turn", not "pass to end step, enigmatic trigger", which signals that she had no intent on using the trigger, making the assumption that it was passed on reasonable. Since player 2 acknowledged end step before playing the emperor, that implies he passed priority to end step already, and was shortcutting until after everything. At most, player two should be able to say "no, i played this after the enigmatic trigger", and that be that, since player 1 had ceded all right to determine priority until then. If player 2 had done nothing, enigmatic would have triggered and resolved with nothing, so its safe to assume it did so, since afterwards player 2 would get priority before ending the turn to play the emperor.
@@ryanparker260When she passes priority at the end of her turn, the enigmatic trigger is already on the stack, even if she doesn’t mention it. Player 2 then has to pass priority back if they want the trigger to resolve so that they can act after it is gone. The responsibility is on Player 2 to explicitly acknowledge the trigger if they want it to play around it, since player 1 isn’t required to acknowledge it until it impacts the board state.
@@OceanicBaconshe doesn't pass priority during end step after the trigger is on the stack. The example was she played the incarnation and then said "pass turn". Enigmatic is an enchantment, and must've been played during a main phase. By the time the enigmatic trigger would come around, she has already given up all right to controlling priority. Player 2 is in total control of the priority, and letting the enigmatic resolve before playing wanderer was the obvious choice, and should have been assumed, or else player 2 should've been able to say afterwards "no, I waited until after the enigmatic" and that's that.
@@ryanparker260 Player 2 doesn’t have “total control of priority”, they just have priority with the incarnation trigger on the stack. Once the incarnation trigger resolves, even if nothing happens, player 1 gets priority again since they are the active player. Therefore acting after the incarnation trigger is gone would require a second priority pass from player 1.
When he moved the cards that was a silent cue to the other player that he understood the trigger happened. When he moved the card improperly that is. A judge call for unsportsmanlike
He had no card ability allowing him to move the card back once he placed it into exile. Since he willingly exiled his card his opponent had no reason to complain...
How does "pass turn" mean anything except "I pass all priorities until I've passed priority during my end step or until you respond"? Would the trigger have been missed if the opponent had said "during your end step" or "before the end of your turn"? Maybe the opponent could say "during the last priority of your end step" or some such to force the missed trigger. You already said pass turn, I'll interrupt the shortcut wherever I want.
well in this case, ”I pass all priorities until I’ve passed priority during my end step or until you respond” means we are at non-active player priority in end step with the trigger on the stack, since both players need to pass priority for that ability to resolve. what you need to do is pretty clearly outlined in the argument in the video, ask if they do anything with enigmatic, then each player will have priority in turn after it resolves.
@@spectralunicorn why would it include the trigger on the stack? That would mean the shortcut would bring the gamestate to a point where the active player would again have to explicitly pass priority. As in "Pass turn. Pass turn." Just to end their turn.
@@johnsingleton3479 Yes that is what the player would have to do. The active player passes turn, enigmatic triggers, then the non-active player would pass priority, enigmatic resolves, then the active player passes on an empty stack to the non-active player who can then choose to act or go to their turn. It’s kind of convoluted but if the non-active player want to act specifically without the enigmatic trigger on the stack then those are the steps they must go through.
@@OceanicBacon I think I have to vehemently disagree. Just because the trigger happens to be during the end step doesn't make the trigger any more or less special than any other trigger. If a player said "pass turn" during main phase one but had a trigger for beginning of combat, the player missed the trigger. If the non active player says "During your end step cast *spell*", the active player can't say "Actually we're at the beginning of combat and this trigger is on the stack but I'm forcing you to resolve your spell despite it not being the moment you intend to cast it."
@@OceanicBacon So I've gone and looked up the ruling for "end of turn" shortcut. I have to concede that there is a specific section that states "End of turn triggered abilities that do not target resolve after the non-active player passes priority.". But this feels extremely backwards to me. Not only is it confusing, but it's a useless ruling and line of text. If the active player executes the shortcut, the active player *still* has to explicitly announce the trigger before the non-active player starts their untap step, rendering the ruling useless. Feels like it's only there so someone who forgot a trigger can remember after an opponent casts a spell during the end step. Furthermore, the explanation for the shortcut goes on to state "If the non-active player is casting spells, they typically mean to do so at the last opportunity in order to limit options to the active player.". So why does it undermine it's own purpose by allowing very out of sequence triggers?! This is a tournament shortcut. This shortcut, which gives a confusing and unfair amount of leniency for no reason, is from the same set of shortcuts that brutally punished someone for saying the word "combat" by ruling the competitor missed the beginning of combat triggers. Somehow saying "It's not even my turn anymore" is more clear about still being able to rules lawyer a trigger onto the stack than saying "combat" means "I would like to add my beginning of combat triggers to the stack." Btw, please don't think I mean any animosity towards you or anyone. I'm just passionate about how concise, fair, and understandable the rules are... and this one misses the mark by a mile.
I dunno, it feels bullshit to even consider the first example as such. If I played Rest in Peace, knew my opponent understood what it did, and *saw them touch their graveyard* it shouldn't be on me to have spotted them putting it back because I didn't read the card's effects out loud. That's like saying every time a comp MTG player just showed a Lightning Bolt and pointed to a creature their opponent could go "durr they forgot to deal damage". Rules like this are so dumb. I can't feel bad for people who got salty losing to someone newer than them who needed a reminder on how to play. Get over it and don't gate players from trying what they want to without taking a Judge Test first-- and I mean this to anyone who'd complain about bad feels from having to care about their opponent at all in a two player game.
The difference with lightning bolt is that it isn’t a triggered ability. Other game aspects like damage and replacement effects can’t be missed in the same way as triggered abilities. Also, the rip player didn’t see any of the movement at all, if they had seen the dredge player move it in the first place then it would be a different situation.
I really don't like the Leyline Binding ruling. An opponent passing the turn indicates they moved to the end of their end step and are past the point of the Incarnation trigger going on the stack, since that happens at the very beginning of the phase, not at the end when the turn is actually passed. If the opponent just said yes, the trigger wouldn't apply and we'd be onto the next turn. There would be no opportunity to flash in leyline binding to get the tiggger. Am I wrong in how I'm thinking about this? I'm just thinking how it would work on mtgo vs real life.
My understanding is saying "I pass the turn" is basically proposing a shortcut for everyone to pass priority until the next turn. At that point your opponent can either agree, in which case that happens, or shorten it by saying when they would like to deviate. Once they deviate we are no longer following that shortcut and so players can do stuff as normal. If they don't have anything to sac, then you can always just say "after your trigger resolves do x" but if they do and you want to see if they miss it before flashing in the wandering emperor you might need to phrase it weirdly. "Do you do anything during your end step?" might work, but I'm not sure.
I don’t think it’s fair to put the onus of putting the cards in to exile on to the person who is not handling the cards. This gives ample opportunity for people who assume the best in people to be taken advantage of like in this scenario here
In poker, there's a concept that "cards speak", i.e. the winner is determined solely by the cards, even if a player didn't realize they had the winning hand. Players should not comment on any strategy decisions (no matter how obvious), but are obligated to speak up if they notice any incorrect procedures or rulings. I feel this also the philosophy in most board game communities. If a card says X happens, it needs to happen, as that is simply the rule of the game being played. I rather prefer that philosophy to the one described here. Magic is interesting due to players determining the best way to create their decks and play their cards. The possibility of missing mandatory triggers adds remembering to say, "X triggers", or noticing that the opponent forgot to say that, which just feels nit-picky, pedantic and annoying from a gameplay perspective.
I can say for yugioh, the idea of “cards speak” is the same idea of “the game”. In the idea that some omnipotent force makes cards do things (think a card simulator) you perform an action and then the things happen. In real life, there is no 3rd force that ensures that things happen, so BOTH players are tasked with enforcing that the things happen. So yugioh certainly has the cards speak idea, and with it, players are forced to keep track of non-optional effects, events that happen in game, and must be able to recall them to a certain extent (at this point it is up to the phase. Both players must be able to track what has happened within a specific phase of a turn. It used to be an entire turn)
Magic is a far too complicated than compared to a simpleton game like poker. You literally cannot apply a strict ruling like that because it's been tested and failed. Something will slip by and there's no way to fix the game state without unfair advantage.
So if I have a trigger that will negatively effect me I can just choose to ignore it? That seems counterintuitive to the card design. N in the first clip in particular I think the dredge player did something illegal by removing his graveyard n then putting it back. If he wasn’t doing it as part of the trigger on Rest In Peace then didn’t he just exile his graveyard for no reason n then return the exiled cards to his graveyard? Isn’t that in itself an illegal play?
If you have a trigger that negatively effects you, then you can not intentionally miss it, because it would be considered cheating. If, on the opposite, your opponent has a trigger that negatively effects you, then, per current magic tournament rules, it is your opponent's job to put it on the stack and properly resolve. You are not responsible for your opponent's triggers, neither your opponent is responsible for yours.
To a similar note, if my rhystic study triggers, and I don't ask my opponent if they want to pay the mana, am I able to just draw a card if they don't do anything or pay mana without my asking, or do I have to ask them each time if they'd like to pay the mana? Folks at my lgs usually ask, and I would assume the rules would require that I ask before guessing that they won't pay, but this video now has me curious if our assumption is wrong.
The draw trigger requires input from an opponent on whether you can do it. Since It requires input from an opponent you are not allow to assume a default of not paying.
@@trevorstammler If you choose to activate the trigger, the opponent needs to give input. If you choose not to activate the draw trigger, there is no input from the opponent to give. There is no way you can legally draw without getting input from the opponent, since a trigger you trigger and control requires input from an opponent to decide how it resolves.
True-Name Nemesis would be a lot worse for 1v1 if its “choose” ability was a triggered ability, but it would potentially be much better in Commander! If I have Yarok and Panharmonicon to triple the trigger, that’s Protection from all 3 opponents! Progenitus, eat your heart out!
What about the rule that says a player can't intentionnally let his opponent do an illegal play ? I thought it would apply to a missed trigger from the opponent.
Because MTG rules have decided that intentionally letting a non-optional trigger not resolve as an opponent is a legal play, when in other card games that would literally get you banned from tournament play for some time period, and doing the same as a card's controller is also against the rules. MTG philosophically likes putting all requirements for acknowledging trigger effects on the effects controller, as the opponent is not required to know what every card the opponent plays does. This extending to an opponent intentionally pretending they don't know when forgetting would be nice is controversial, and differs with what a lot of people believe should be the rules (and from what other card games do). Rules-sharking and angle shooting being supported is pretty unique to MTG. MTG wants to allow players to take advantage of every bit of rules knowledge they may have over the opponent. In Yu-Gi-Oh, for example, rules sharking is explicitly an infraction in tournament policy, and a tournament-winning player said in a deck profile he brought a token designed for a different top deck to a tournament and placed it visible to his opponents to make the opponent do suboptimal plays in turn 1/side boarding before he revealed what his deck was, and was banned for a year. "Placing a game element in a way to intentionally mislead your opponent is listed as 'Misrepresenting the Game State' in the Policy Documents and is considered cheating. It is concerning that you promoted this as an acceptable behavior, to viewers who will take your word for it and do the same thing." It has always be interesting to me that Magic takes such a Diametrically opposed viewpoint, especially when many people complain about the rules encouraging sharking.
Personally, if I was the judge in charge of the rest in peace clip, i'd say Kent was in the wrong because he did exile his card, and then proceeded to un-exile it. He respected the trigger, and then moved his exiled card back into the graveyard, which is an illegal action.
@@ShinkuDragon Genuinely just too exacerbated to go into depths how the obvious cheat is an obvious cheat. Even the judge who issued the ruling agrees, he just didn't have the full context since he only asked the rapist for his point of view. He didn't know that Kent moved the card into exile and then back into the graveyard. Moving a card from your graveyard after a rest in peace resolves can only be due to the trigger resolving, undoing that is blatant cheating.
There's a whole playlist of triggered ability questions on this channel. Several videos from that playlist go into the details including IPG/MTR citations
@@miserepoignee9594 while this is correct, one of the best parts about magic is finding creative ways to use cards and taking those away makes the game worse. (Just think 99.9 percent of thoughtsiezes target the opponent, but having the ability to target yourself makes for awesome reanimator plays). Don't make cards worse or less cool just to prevent people from missing triggers...let's make people who understand the spirit of the rules and allow judges the freedom to make necessary fixes if it is how a commentator/spectator would interpret the game state.
Counterpoints: 1) Sometimes allowing that creative freedom makes a card worse to play with or against. This is why all mill cards nowadays can only mill your opponent, not you. 2) There are lots of cards printed every set, but most cards only ever catch on with a small subset of Magic's total audience. Therefore, it's important to make cards that are going to play well with their audience that they're designed for, even if that means making it somewhat worse for people in audiences that are probably not going to interact with that card. If you're making a card for 2 player tournament formats (which a 3 mana 3/1 that's completely immortal to all conventional forms of removal, but only if there's a single opponent, clearly is), it should play well in two player tournament formats. 3) Magic designers have shown time and again that making the cards play smoothly and the way people expect them to work is something they value and do make changes to accommodate. This is why suspend gives creatures haste, even though there's no flavor reason why this makes sense. It's also why cards like Militia Bugler have you put the cards on bottom in a random order, rather than any order, even though that too makes them functionally worse. It saves the online players one click.
@@JudgingFtW Thanks for responding. But now to attack your counter points. For counter point one: you specify mill, but the change to having mill be only mill your opponent is a balancing issue, WotC figured out a spell that can mill both players is much better than a card that only mills your opponent, so to make cards that can aggressively mill your opponent without making self mill too strong they had to adapt. (And there are times they should do this and times they shouldn't, and if you want a hot button discussion topic bring up if making Tibalts Trickery only target your opponents' spells) For #2 talking about true name as a card designed for individual games is absolutely wrong, it was released in a multiplayer set and is a fair card for multiplayer games...if you were designing it for single player it would just have protection from everything and save the step which caused the issue. The challenge is that it is designed for one use fairly in it's own format and is broken in other environments (broken is defined as strong enough to be a legacy threat because fair cards are not). #3 I thought they made this change starting with Cascade to solve the issue being that misses don't allow you to stack your deck, and enjoyed the side effect of speed for both paper and online play. I don't think it was a change for the reason that you say, though they liked that side effect.
I'm sorry, but the RIP situation is dumb as hell, and obvious angle shooting from the opponent, to me. You're playing in a televised tournament - you know what the card does, the opponent announced it, you didn't ask for clarification on the ability. If I cast RIP, I'm not just doing it to put a blank card on the field, so we should agree announcing it means "I'm putting this in play and all it's effects begin." It's the same if OP says "Conflagrate for 8" and moves on, and I take no damage, saying "End turn? Am i free to go?" And then use the excuse on their turn, "Oh, you didnt say it was targeting me, so I assumed you picked no targets." I understand that, rules as written, Dredge *technically* did nothing wrong, but if that happened to me and a judge said, "Sorry, you missed the ETB trigger of a permanent's core effect," I'd swear of competitve play on the spot. Its just poor sportsmanship.
You can't really "angle shoot" at the top of tables. Everyone there is very a experienced and savvy MTG player. Sometimes people forget. You are not behooved to tell your opponent the most optimal play at all times. If your opponent is MISTAKEN about what a card does, you should clarify or call a judge. If both players KNOW what a card does, and one uses it incorrectly, that's on them. IMO
@@raze667 The player even *moved their conflagrate*, thus visibly acknowledging the trigger. The place where they put it should've been considered the exile zone.
I feel like a player who wins big tournaments and does content for a living would know exactly what a triggered ability is. Also making himself look more innocent by getting a warning feels like exactly something a cheater COULD do. Or at least someone doing slimy things like trying to kill TNN on blocks.
I'm not sure what the point of clarifying that they aren't called "mandatory" triggers. It's not am official game term afaik but it is literally the case that they are mandatory. See every digital version of MTG, which are simulations of the game rules, for example. Missed triggers is itself a fix to the human element of the paper version of the game but it doesn't change the fact the trigger *is* in nature mandatory. It's also why you can't make the concious decision to ignore them when you are aware they should have occured or why you get punished if the trigger is considered detrimental to you.
Digital magic is an imperfect implementation of magic’s rules for reasons such as this. And the reason to not call non-optional triggers “mandatory” is that is gives players the false idea that if they get missed, there’s an obligation to roll back the game and make sure that they happen, when in reality the decision of whether to do that is up to the opponent.
@@OceanicBacon you are absolutely wrong. On this specific subject digital magic is categorically more accurate than tournament Magic. The only reason your opponent gets to choose whether the trigger goes on the stack is a concession to the fact that people are not able to follow the rules of the game accurately 100% of the time. It's also why purposefully forgetting certain triggers results in a DQ. They *are* mandatory but tournament play uses additional rules to resolve situations where humans make *mistakes*.
@@ookamigenji-pv2st Those mistakes are part of the game, remembering your triggers and playing your deck correctly is a skill and digital magic removes that element of the game by holding your hand and making sure you don’t have to think about it. There are a lot of games that I’ve won on arena that I absolutely should have lost just because arena put my triggers on the stack for me automatically, when in an actual game I would have forgotten and lost.
@@OceanicBacon you have no idea what you are talking about. Missed triggers is something that only exists in Tournament Rules. It's not part of the rules of the game itself because you can't actually miss stuff that must happen in the rules. You wanting to feel good about yourself because you remembered a trigger has nothing to do with anything. Needing the "skill" to focus and remember triggers is necessary because humans are imperfect machines and missed trigger policies exist as a patch. Maintaining the game state is something that exists in every other similar game and in fact was also a thing in MTG for a very long period before judges decided they wanted to handle it differently. All this because you wanted to be a pedant and argue mandatory and non-optional somehow mean different things btw 💀
@@ookamigenji-pv2st 1. I assumed we were discussing this in the context of tournament magic. If you are playing in a casual setting then you can use whatever missed trigger policy you and your friends agree on. 2. Whether you view this aspect of human imperfection as a bug that requires a “patch” or as a positive feature of paper magic depends on whether you consider the ability to remember your triggers to be a valuable skill to measure in a game of magic. I think it is, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. 3. It’s true that in other card games and in magic’s past the missed trigger policy has been different, but I don’t see how that’s relevant to modern magic other than that it causes confusion among players who are familiar with those rulesets. 4. They do mean different things, mandatory means that it must happen no matter what, while non-optional means that the controller of the ability doesn’t get to decide whether it happens or not. Replacement effects are mandatory, triggered abilities are non-optional. And this conversation is happening in the comment section of a judge video about rules lawyering, pedantry is what it’s all about my guy 😁
Definitely a pet peeve of mine is hearing the phrase "But this trigger says it's not a may, it can't be missed", these words fill me with the rage of a thousand suns
Your assessment of the conflagrate situation is also factually wrong, he marks the 1 damage before playing rest in peace. He probably saw his opponent exile the conflagrate but didn't see him return it. Which makes this complete cheating in my eyes
I'm not sure why you would say something like this. Do you think I made that part up? It's literally what one of the players said in his explanation of the incident. RIP player is clearly moving his pen around the time of the incident.
@@JudgingFtW Rewatch the clip, he marks the damage as soon as he taps the land for mana!! you rewatch the clip. The person who said that was affiliated with the cheater or the cheater himself. Who, by the way, was the only person who gave his full storx to the attending judge. That judge later said, had he been given full context, he would've ruled differently. Considering all that I don't see why you'd defend such a blatantly not just unsportsmanlike but rule-breaking play.
the problem for me, who did an official tournament once and never again, is that in the same way there aren't all the rules written in the rule book, i don't know all the ambiguities i could "rely on" by mistake and "backfiring" me by mistake. kent ketter, "amy" and owen turtenwald are douchebags
I feel like this video is a direct response to a comment I made last week about a situation involving Mayhem Devil. If it is, kudos for addressing all my 3 concerns and making them more palletable by not referencing my expample. Great video. If this was intention it might be worth responding to viewing as I almost didn't watch this. If it's just a coincident then lucky me :)
1st n 3rd scenarios are def scummy and imo, cheating by way of technicality. Both examples are high level play, they knew what they were doing and unfortunately it happens way too much in mtg. It's just comes down to plausible deniability but yea, def angle shooting n borderline cheating.
Missed triggers happen so often in our tabletop commander games, its become a "pick your battles" situation. Sometimes its better to let them play on, so the game ends before 4am.
Maybe there's a remedy to the shortcuts that involves yet more shortcuts but does get around having to remind opponents of triggers. If Amy says pass turn, and Nick says ok before the beginning of my untap, then that could be a statement of, I'd like to access the latest possible empty stack before my turn begins. Similarly if Amy said go to combat and Nick says before the beginning of declare attackers. In both cases Amy can respond by naming any interjecting triggers and no clarity would be lost that wasn't already lost by allowing the 'end my turn', 'go to combat' shortcuts.
The issue with that is that when an ability resolves, the active player gets priority again. So in order to act after these triggers, the non-active player has to pass priority back to the active player, they can’t just say “I’m acting after this ability resolves” because they don’t have priority then.
@@OceanicBacon right, but if the active player is chosing to not act on their triggers then there's no issue. So if Active P says 'pass' then Opp P says 'before the beginning of my turn' the Active P can then announce any triggers that would intercede or can be assumed to have missed them. Its probably better to not introduce more shortcuts and instead ask "are we in the end step, is the stack empty?" like Dave suggests. But that gives the Active P a lot of prompt to think about triggers they might have missed.
@@TheBedazzeler Yeah it’s kind of difficult to specifically play around a trigger without acknowledging it to some extent. I don’t know if that’s necessarily a bad thing though, if you are wanting to do something tricky with someone else’s triggers then there should be at least some opportunity for them to notice.
People who try to weasel between the common sense, unspoken assumed effect of a card and the vagaries of rules text for their benefit are either scummy as hell or fools. Its ok to not know how things. In both these instances, however, the players noticed something was missing / unclear. They then decided, out of ignorance or malice, that the situation benefited them. Either call a judge right there to get it resolved or roll with the default, unspoken assumption that an opponent would prefer the card they played benefit them. Don't be the person that we need to create a "Well that's obvious but someone did it or else they wouldn't have this sign" sign for.
Changing Truename to be "choose an opponent" has the wrinkle that it technically removes options. To force an example, say you somehow know your opponent has Solar Blaze (each creature deals damage to itself equal to its power). If you play TNN and choose yourself, then their removal spell won't work. In general, I prefer when cards allow plays that reward lateral thinking. As a real example, I had one of those creatures that say "when you cast a spell, deal 1 damage" in play and in my hand was a counterspell and something else. You can't cast a counterspell when the stack is empty, but it didn't say "counter target spell an opponent controls", so I was able to counter my own thing to trigger the creature and win the game.
In regards to scenario 2 isn't part of rulings to take in consideration the intention of a play in particular when it is in conjunction with shortcuts. Without video evidence of the timing of everything that happened how can it not be assumed that pass the turn is passing all priority until cleanup. It would be the obvious intent of this play to be at the last moment of priority to play wandering emperor therefore by using shortcuts it should be assumed that Amy is ignoring the enigmatic trigger. Nothing about this is healthy for the game and should be looked at seriously if the ruling actually agrees with Amy on being able to essentially go back to the beginning of the end step after saying pass the turn. RIP situation I can at least understand from a ruling perspective (I guess) I however disagree and with him moving the conflag that was clear acknowledgement of the trigger happening and moving it back should then be considered incorrect board state even based on what Dave says at 06:05 that you cant just arbitrarily move a card from GY to exile. That being the case why is he then allowed to move it to the assumed exile zone and then move it back. That is clearly deceptive and no different than putting a dryad arbor amongst your lands as far as im concerned.
The AP ALWAYS gets a chance to respond when priority is passed back to them. Stating "pass the turn" is a short cut of passing priority and moving to clean-up; if no one responds the turn ends. Should a NAP respond, the AP turn is not over, as priority is handed back to them and they get to respond. The only times the NAP can respond after the AP says "pass turn" is at the end of the second main or the beginning of the end step. The AP player's turn is not over until they move past the clean-up stage. Regardless of which of these steps the NAP acted, the AP can still react. The last sentence of the first paragraph demonstrates the lack of rules knowledge.
@@rlbarney2 couldn't be more wrong every time there is a phase change the NAP has a chance to respond and the only time a phase can attempt to change is if the AP wishes to do so. If in the event AP wishes to change phase then NAP also chooses to change the phase is moved forward and the AP does not get another response until the phase has changed. There absolutely is NO time in which both players pass priority does the AP get another moment of priority before phase change. Again as stated as there is no audio/video evidence of the play discussed there are a lot of assumptions needed to be made here. The discussion I bring up is that this is not healthy for the game not if it was ruled correctly. Here is the direct excerpt of the tournament rules about passing priority: If the active player passes priority with an empty stack during their second main phase or uses a phrase such as “Go” or “Your Turn” at any time, the non-active player is assumed to be acting in the end step unless they are affecting how or whether an end of turn ability triggers. End of turn triggered abilities that do not target resolve after the non-active player passes priority. So as stated purely by the rules in the last sentence we have to assume playing wandering emperor is in response to the enigmatic trigger. This is the part that has no business being how this should be handled. Unless enigmatic trigger was announced how could it be assumed that is what the emperor was being played in response to since the onus is on the AP in this case to declare the trigger it should be assumed the trigger is missed not the other way around. There is no amount of convincing anyone could give me that could say this is how that should have happened. Basically the issue is the AP gains more knowledge by using the shortcut method here and the rules should be changed that if the NAP responds in this scenario it is assumed that the current phase is end step any beginning of end step triggers happened and priority is passed to NAP. That would completely prevent any extra knowledge gained and prevent the scenario discussed in the video. If the AP WANTED enigmatic to trigger the words that should be used should be pass/go to end step not PASS TURN.
I hate this entire argument regarding missed triggers. The game is best played when cards do what they're supposed to do. If players best chances of winning is their opponents cards not doing what's written on them, and they go out of their way to acknowledge that something is missed, then that's poor sportsmanship at its finest. The dredge player got it wrong, the IPG got it wrong, and the batterskull player got it wrong. Intentionally missing triggers isn't a skill the game should be decided on, and missing them has nothing to do with playing the game better or worse than your opponent. They clearly wouldn't have played a card to then not want to use it. The intent is always implied. If the game can't be reversed to the point of the missed trigger then the players should be given the option agree to play with the trigger missed, or replay the game if time permitting. If agreement can't be met then it should just end in a draw. I don't think any one person needs to be held accountable here since maintaining a proper game state is always a good thing for everyone in the game. Beyond this, there's an extremely strong argument for ableism that the rules currently cater towards. 1 in 7 people have a disability, and not all disabilities are visible. To treat everyone with equal respect it should be expected that any assistance offered to someone with a disability should be available to anyone else. If you'd announce an adverse trigger for a blind or mute person since they cannot be reasonably expected to do that themselves then you should be required to do so for someone who's not blind or mute. With that in mind, if you're unwilling to do that it makes you an ableist and ergo a terrible member of the community. Why the rules cater to these types of clowns is beyond me.
But in a situation like the exiling the graveyard, if it's officially the persons onus to recognize it, the opponent doesn't have the obligation to fix it.
