DDR 

Yeah I'm glad I'm a subscriber here because until I heard it from one of these videos recently, I thought that was how it still worked.

I mean, this is the standard for kitchen table magic, not really for sanctioned tournaments. If someone misses something in a casual game, I generally remind them. Even if it's a may for the first time and let them know there will be no more reminders for it. The game becomes increasingly complex with cards having obscene amounts of text so a single commander game can get out of hand quickly

Right? I much prefer the newer way to handle missed triggers.

Unless you're playing at competitive REL that disinction still matters.

Yes, I noticed this as well in the pro tour

Jean-Emmanuel Depraz played two lands against Javier Dominguez in a turn where he did nothing else and no one noticed, as far as sloppy PT play that's an actual GRV.

​@@Intangible360 About as bad as shuffling blanks into your opponent's deck

Or distracting your opponent by lying about your life total and saying that you thought your own Haywire Mite lost you 2 life vs gaining you 2 life. Just say it...Neilson is a cheat and a lier.

I find it very funny that MTGO misses a mention

@@laurelkeeper I assume that MTGO works the same as arena, but I haven't really used the engine so didn't want to misspeak incase it has some "acknowledge trigger" button or similar

Arena also doesn't allow you to sac creatures on their way to the graveyard, which makes me feel like I'm back in 1995 again.

@@Vex-MTG fair enough. It functions about the same as arena, machine keeps track of everything.

@@jonothanthrace1530 it does though? If you Lightning Bolt my Birds of Paradise, I can sac then with your bolt on the stack, even in arena.

In that case, Nick trying to target Amy would be a Game Rule Violation, and this illegal play would be handled with either a backup to the point where Nick targeted or else by leaving the game state as-is.

Card is so ass lmao

@keepingitcasualmtg uploaded a short about that called "which pick to pick?" which you might find helpful for this topic

If the equipment generate the triggers, controller of the equipment controls the triggers. If the equipment gives the creature an ability, then the creature's current controller would control the trigger. So something like Blade of the Anime would give the equipment's controller a basic land every time Deimos attacks, it doesn't matter who controls Deimos.

For the other weird cases, if a trigger asked you do you something impossible (shuffle a non-existent card into a deck, reveal a card type that doesn't exist in your library, turn a manifested nonpermanent face up, etc), you do as much as you can. So for the attacking creature tokens example you asked, if Deimos is owned by another player, and you get the trigger to make two tapped attacking tokens, you would create two tapped tokens, you can't attack folks on other players' turns so they aren't attacking.

No, the ability only cares that the object in question is a creature to be a legal target with either wording. It ceasing to be a creature later doesn't change the ability being applied to it.

It’s not actually that shocking. Because the protection is a blanket effect that applies after one trigger, often at the beginning of the turn, a ton of game actions can occur in between that trigger resolving and it being relevant. Because of this it’s entirely reasonable that the ring gets played, both players initially treat the protection as a given cause it’s the one ring, and then let their minds go elsewhere as the game state progresses. And from there if a bunch of other things have happened it’s not unreasonable that the trigger that happened a turn ago and that also leaves no physical evidence of it existing would have gone by the wayside as brain space is used to think on future turns. And while I’m at it there’s a second card in this equation. It’s also not totally unreasonable that an obscure bulk rate from M19 that hasn’t seen play before wouldn’t be immediate available knowledge to the players. And it’s also entirely possible that this interaction had not come up before and so both players assumed the card didn’t target.

That isn't the reason people play it though. I'd be much more surprised if someone forgot to tap it for the card draw.

@@cool_scatter that would be shocking.

@@barbedwire9975 Your analysis certainly is reasonable. I guess I'm one of the few people that will stop and read a card before it resolves, or is even in my deck, so I can understand how to work with/against it and also keep triggers constantly under surveillance (It probably gets annoying sometimes when I say trigger trigger trigger when there are so many things happening lol)

As he said in the video, this was literally when the card was new. The judge hadn’t even seen it before

The order of extra turns is like the stack. When an effect says "take an extra turn after this one", you can think of that as going on the top of the stack. Any other extra turn effects that happen before that turn begins will add their extra turns on top of the stack. When a player passes the turn, you first check the stack of extra turns. If it isn't empty, you start with the top (most recent) effect. If there are no unresolved extra turn effects, turns continue in the normal order starting with whoever would have taken their turn had extra turn effects not happened. Timesifter doesn't stack up multiple extra turn effects so we don't need to worry about their order, but it does generate one per turn meaning that once you start getting Timesifter triggers, you won't return to the normal turn order until after it's dead. When it's blown up, continue to play out the remaining extra turn granted by it since the extra turns it gives out don't require it to still be out to happen. Then you will continue with the player after the last non-extra turn. So for example, the normal turn order is A, B, C, D. Player A casts Timesifter during their turn. At the beginning of B's upkeep, it triggers and A Wins. During A's upkeep, D wins. During D's Upkeep, D wins again. That same turn, they destroy Timesifter. D will still get the next turn. After that, we will go to C since the last normal turn was B's turn.

It's deemed a missed trigger because the responsibility is on the player who controls the trigger to remember it when it would first affect the game state. Just because the triggered ability should be in effect does not mean anyone else has the responsibility to remember it for the player. T1R's first ability is specifically a triggered ability, and not a static ability.

It doesn't matter if Simon remembered it, just if Javier did.

Actually, if Simon did attack, would Javier have taken damage?

Actually, if Simon did attack after Javier had acknowledged the Suncleanser play, would Javier have taken damage?

Effects resolve in the same order that the text is printed on the effect. First it exiles, then it gives energy. If the text was printed in the opposite order Amy would not get any energy, but since exile happens first the cleanser is no longer on the field when the energy generation happens.

There's no protection to know about until the trigger has been acknowledged though.

@@Vex-MTG so the assumption here is that the trigger was not acknowledged. what if it was? what if the One Ring controller was unaware of how suncleanser works, in that case, that the second option targets an opponent. should a judge intervene in that illegal action?

​@@GuilhermeCamposoyou clearly didn't watch the video did you? 😂 At the 3:25 mark, he goes over exactly this. Next time, watch the video lol

@@GuilhermeCamposo yes. If the trigger had been acknowledged, then targeting somebody who is Pro-Everything would be a games rules violation

@@Vex-MTG this is clear, but my question is what the judge should have done? one player did an illegal action against an opponent that was unable to identify it and that changed the game outcome completely.

No because Amy can just say suncleanser resolves but his etb can’t target me because I have protection

Not sure nut im pretty sure that a player can interrupt a shortcut at any point along the way. For example if I on my main phase say "Move to declare attackers" you could respond with "On beggining of combat i bolt your Ragavan" and the game is now in the beggining of combat with a lightning bolt on the stack without the option for me to revert to precombat. Using the same logic in your example Amy should be able to say "Suncleanser resolves but you have to pick the other mode cause I have protection from one ring."

Ugh, that sounds right.

If Nick asks, "is the stack empty?" before going to cast Suncleanser, does that give him the legal basis to say Amy missed the trigger and cannot put it on the stack?

In short, is there any way Nick can insure his play?

You have to demonstrate awareness of your trigger by the time it becomes relevant to the visible game state. So if I play the one ring and don’t say anything, then the trigger isnt necessarily missed yet. But if you then attack me and I mark the damage, then the trigger is missed because it would have had an effect on the visible game state but I didn’t point it out in time. So you can play the one ring without pointing out it’s protection trigger, and choose only to mention it if/when it becomes relevant to the visible game state.

You’re not allowed to deliberately miss a trigger, and if doing so is to your benefit it’s going to look especially suspicious. This does mean judges have to rule on intent sometimes which is obviously tricky.

But "Nick knew that the trigger occurred" is objectively false. If the opponent didn't acknowledge the trigger, then it *didn't* happen, no matter what Nick believes. Nick *assumed* it happened while making attack decisions. That only potentially changes the ethics of the later decision to target the opponent. It does not change the rules though, which do not care about whether *Nick* recognized the trigger, only whether the Ring's controller did.

@@Ahayzothis really just sounds like rules lawyering, and, I guess even if technically correct, is kinda just bad sportsmanship in my eyes.

@@Jlizard27 Do you think rules lawyering is just when someone makes use of a rule you don’t like? Of course it isn’t bad sportsmanship, those are the rules of the game. If you think the rules are bad then start a petition or something but don’t be mad at people for playing the game correctly

@@OceanicBacon​​​​⁠I guess it just feels weird to base the game on remembering to acknowledge a trigger, especially if someone seems to understand that the trigger was tacitly acknowledged but not officially stated. I get that this isn’t how the game works and I’m not interested in starting a petition. I don’t really follow competitive magic and I don’t necessarily have the ability to remember to acknowledge every trigger like others do, so I empathize with Amy in this scenario. Please go easy on me, I watch these videos because I like to try to have a better understanding of the rules, not because I think I’m right about how the rules work.

@@Jlizard27 That's completely reasonable, especially as someone not involved with competitive Magic. People play and approach the game in different ways, and sometimes that means one group might give more or less leeway on certain things. In this case, missed triggers is one of those things that isn't so much rules lawyering, but something that you generally are expected know and understand in competitive events, especially if you are playing at a level where you make it to a Pro Tour. Rules lawyering and sharking are very real things, so definitely don't take this as me trying to imply otherwise. I think for most of us, the difference comes from whether it's a semi fringe rule that is reasonable not to know, versus something like missed triggers, which is just a general part of competitive play that you are expected to know about at those types of events. If that weren't the case, I would personally 100% agree with you about it feeling too sharky and not ok. Similarly, if I'm in a random pickup game at my LGS, I'm not gonna hold someone to a missed trigger, and will gladly go to bat for someone who is fighting to get their trigger.

you can still respond to the trigger with an instant if you want to, but it does require you to point out the existence of the trigger if your opponent didn’t already. There just isnt a way to respond to an opponent’s ability without alerting them of it first, which is probably ok

"With trigger on stack, I cast lightning bolt targeting you." It is not that difficult, just use your words to communicate clearly what you want to do.

A professional player should know how to optimize their play by using the rules theyve been given to their advantage, so regardless of intent this play is not scummy

When a trigger is good for you it's generally considered punishment enough that you didn't get the beneficial effect. The effect being beneficial to you also generally means you wouldn't want to miss it on purpose. The rules around what is or is not beneficial could be a bit clearer, but I would guess they generally want to leave it open to the judgement of the judge.

@@seandun7083 good answer. In general there can be situation were it becomes very subjective, what is beneficial and what not. In other cases it can be pretty clear. What I am trying to say is that the rule is counter intuitive and should be replaced by "When a trigger is clear (no targets, etc.) it cannot be missed, when it is not a "may" thing." It would match with many other rules cases in the past.

lmao have you actually tried to play nadu on mtgo, it’s a nightmare. It is absolutely easier in paper

@@OceanicBacondon’t people use Thoracle on MTGO?

⁠@@Jlizard27 Yes but only because of the limitations of digital magic. The fact that they play thoracle is evidence that combos like that are easier to execute in paper

@@OceanicBaconI guess I don’t know what the solution to a problem like this is. I think triggers should resolve whether they are acknowledged or not, like apparently it is in digital magic, but I understand that it can sometimes lead to an overwhelming amount of triggers. Idk what the solution should be, but there’s a clear gap in knowledge about the rules that is created when one auto-resolves triggers and the other doesn’t.

@@Jlizard27 Yeah missing triggers is a uniquely paper problem that digital magic doesn’t have to worry about. Personally, I prefer how it’s handled in paper because having to remember your triggers and properly resolve them adds another layer of skill to the game, but I can understand the perspective of players who would rather it happen “automatically”. And you are right about the knowledge gap. The comments of any video about missed triggers is inevitably full of people saying “it should just happen automatically because that’s what happens on arena”

0:14 "Nick plays a Suncleanser and says he wants to remove all counters from Amy. Amy sets her energy total to zero..." Seems pretty clear to me, chief.

@@miserepoignee9594 if Amy having energy counters had been mentioned anywhere before that statement it would have made more sense. The only counters I knew were involved were One Ring counters, so I missed it.

@@sammaier4485 take a look at 7:00. He mentioned the scenario where the ring controller could acknowledge the game state based on the trigger resolution, calling it a miscommunication that could make the opponent do an illegal action. according to ruling, you don’t actually have to said it, if you know the state in the first check opportunity.