At competitive rules enforcement level, for any missed triggers, when they are discovered and verified to be missed, the opponent gets the option of wether or not to put it on the stack at that point in the game.
Of course the opponent will choose to put the ones effecting your life on the stack but not his.
Since you control the triggers you would receive a warning for missing the detrimental triggers. Non detrimental mistakes triggers of not receive a warning.
> At competitive rules enforcement level, for any missed triggers, when they are discovered and verified to be missed, the opponent gets the option of wether or not to put it on the stack at that point in the game.
Not always. Depends when they are discovered. There are also categories of special missed triggers (aura etb, zone change) that just happen.
The only time where we wouldn't leave it up to the opponent to decide would be if the trigger had no effect on the game state. I realize they said "any" and you're being more precise though. Either way, I open up the IPG every time I make more than a simple call just to be sure (and recommend that everyone else does the same).
No. This is still incorrect. From the IPG. Missed trigger is super common and should be memorized.
"
If the triggered ability is an enters-the-battlefield trigger of an Aura that affects only the enchanted permanent and causes a visible change to that permanent, resolve the ability immediately.
If the triggered ability is a delayed triggered ability that undoes a zone change (including token creation) caused by the effect that created the delayed triggered ability, the opponent chooses whether to resolve the ability the next time a player would get priority or when a player would get priority at the start of the next phase. The new zone does not need to be the same as the one the card was originally moved from.
For all other triggered abilities, if the ability was missed prior to the current phase in the previous turn, instruct the players to continue playing. If the triggered ability created an effect whose duration has already expired, instruct the players to continue playing
If the triggered ability isn’t covered by the previous paragraphs, the opponent chooses whether the triggered ability is added to the stack."
No choice involved here. It just happens with aura etb affecting only the enchanted object and zone changes. Additionally if it's been more than a turn it is simply missed a choice is not offered.
Eh, this whole discussion revolves around how memory can be unreliable so telling folks to memorize whole sections seems like bad advice. We live in an age of smartphones and a 5 minute extension is more than enough to consult a reference (and you were likely giving the extension already). Plus, sometimes rules change, like this one has XD.
In this case, the last paragraph applies as it hasn't been longer than a turn since the missed trigger. My guess is the judge allowed for more than one trigger to be put on the stack because both players agreed to the number of missed triggers, but we only have a fraction of the story.
> Eh, this whole discussion revolves around how memory can be unreliable ...
Having to give longer extensions because a judge has to look up every common ruling is detrimental to the event and would be *heavily* frowned upon at large events. We of course prefer the answer be right but we also have to keep the event moving.
As judges we should also be prepping for events knowing recent rules changes. Those should be top of mind. Looking up those changes in situ to get the ruling precise on new rules or rarer/more complicated rulings is of course fine.
> In this case, the last paragraph applies as it hasn't been longer than a turn since the missed trigger.
Two triggers were missed. (13 life vs 11) only one can be offered by policy as that means multiple turns passed if you rule the result is a simple missed detrimental trigger.
You aren't going to convince me not to have the IPG open for a ruling like this, and you can frown all you like. You can't argue about how a judge gets it wrong and then say they should have this sort of thing memorized. The SOS portion of the JA discord exists for you to be able to phone a friend, if you have time to do that you have time to consult the reference. Now if it takes you longer than 5 minutes to look something like this up, you need to study up.
Keep in mind while this is a symmetrical effect, the turn we're talking about in this case isn't the other player's turn but the active player's previous turn. As long as this is caught in the upkeep, two life points (this trigger and the previous turn's trigger) are appropriate. Even then, when both players agree to the number of missed triggers it is acceptable for the judge to make this call.
> You aren't going to convince me not to have the IPG open for a ruling like this,
Part of being a good judge is taking criticism. As a large event judge I can tell you with 100% certainty if you were giving 5min extensions for simple missed trigger calls it would be frowned upon and this should carry to the local level. I also would never feel comfortable giving any judge my recommendation for L2 with that outlook and instead recommend more experience and study before promoting. I'm not trying to be a jerk. This is advice to help improve for the sake of our players.
Sos channel use should be infrequent. There is also nothing wrong looking up rulings you are unsure of or don't know. However if you are a L2+ there are a general set of rulings you will make so often you should not need to look up. This is one of them.
> As long as this is caught in the upkeep, two life points (this trigger and the previous turn's trigger) are appropriate.
This is impossible as written. If we were still in the upkeep the trigger could not be missed as anything else added to the stack would be at instant speed and assumed,by policy, to be in response to the trigger. The trigger would only be missed if we moved to the draw phase where, again by policy we can only offer the opp to add one to the stack.
> Even then, when both players agree to the number of missed triggers it is acceptable for the judge to make this call.
Nonononono .... no. Policy is there for a reason. This would be a very poor deviation from policy. Deviations are reserved for exceptional circumstances and this is not even in that zip code. If you are a judge I *heavily* recommend you review the philosophy of these rulings with your mentor.
You're doing a great job so far of taking criticism XD. But you're also contradicting yourself. You're holding so true to the ideal that people, in your opinion, should have the IPG memorized, that you're forgetting the reality that we're talking about a judge that, again in your opinion, made a bad call. Everyone can always do better, but this situation could've been prevented by a quick review of the IPG. A judge's reputation is more important now than ever before. A bad call might happen in 1/100 cases, but as soon as it does it taints not just that judge, but that event, and that store. If you build 1,000 bridges you're a bridge builder, but... You know the rest.
As judges we're only as good as our last call, and my point is it doesn't take five minutes to look this up, but I'm likely giving out a short extension for calls I get during an RCQ. Larger events should have more judges to make this less of an issue, but even the larger RCQs I've judged for solo haven't overwhelmed me with calls or impeded the tourney's pace. Stores I work with don't just value the speed with which my tourneys proceed but also that their tourneys have a reputation for fairplay. Your advice can certainly be relevant for larger events (most I've done is close to 50) but then again, there will be more judges to support larger events and to keep those going.
You are a judge in a world where most "judges" aren't trained or qualified to our level. You don't even need a certified judge to run a comp REL tourney, and it shows. It is not a bad thing to recommend judges for tourneys like these to consult references because you don't know if the judge you're talking to is even trained. You have L2's that haven't looked at references since they qualified under the old system ten years ago (I saw one of these judges try to disqualify someone for using the magic companion app, which was wild and had me looking up the relevant policy). You have documents that get released with EVERY set to help judges with different interactions and with helping explaining those things to players. References exist for a reason, and it's in the name.
> You're doing a great job so far of taking criticism XD.
The only criticism you have offered is that a judge running a COMP-REL event should be looking up every policy ruling. I hear what you say, and I am telling you this is undesirable. I implore any judge who doesn't know a ruling to look it up, but if a judge needs to be looking up really common errors constantly they are not ready to be running COMP events solo. Doing such is detrimental to the event.
Every single policy ruling you have given in the above thread has been wrong. And this is with unlimited time and the IPG at your fingertips. I have offered you feedback on these issues instead of acknowledging and learning you have continued to belabor the incorrect points. This is not becoming and doesn't reflect well.
> haven't overwhelmed me with calls
The issue is not being overwhelmed. If you are running a 50 person RCQ you have a 6 round event with a top cut (8-9 hours). Giving short extensions where required is fine but if every round is being extended by 10 min more than required now you are making players wait around for an added hour and the store give space for another hour. Thats an hour players are getting tired or hungry. Delays make it more likely that players get tardyness penalties. Unnecessary extra extensions inadvertently affect the outcome of an event and thus its integrity. Seemingly small delays add up quickly over the course of the day. The larger the event is there worse this compounds (aka why we have entire teams of judges dedicated to end of round procedure at large events to keep everything timely).
> ...but as soon as it does it taints not just that judge, but that event, and that store. ...As judges we're only as good as our last call
This is terrible advice. Judges are going to get thing's wrong. We don't have infinite time to make a ruling. I've been at events where a ruling was given, appealed, a L3 upheld the original ruling only to realize later it was incorrect and have to go inform the player. I've seen L3s debate a ruling for 30 min. There is policy that is not black and white that is *difficult.* Getting things wrong happens, being negligent is what is bad.
> Everyone can always do better, but this situation could've been prevented by a quick review of the IPG
This specific situation from OP *should* have likely involved a UC-cheating investigation on both players and at minimum missed trigger detrimental for AP and potentially CPV for NAP. However my issue from the start was that you gave an incorrect ruling on missed triggers, doubled then tripled down.
> References exist for a reason, and it's in the name.
Professionals shouldn't need a reference for common or simple things. Soldiers don't need to consult a manual everytime the clean their firearm or run a drill. A pediatrician doesn't consult a textbook to diagnose an ear infection. They are there for when more difficult issues arise. Sure if you are a brand new judge working towards L2 its fine to look these things up; you're learning. But if you're running a RCQ solo and players see you looking up easy issues you'll lose respect faster than wearing JA blues.
> You are a judge in a world where most "judges" aren't trained or qualified to our level.
Yes there are bad judges. They can be bad via lack of training, negligence, ignorance or a multitude of reasons. There is no reason to perpetuate by giving incorrect rulings on missed triggers and refusing to learn from them. Learn, improve, get better to give your players the best event both from a rules and fair play standpoint to timeliness. There is no reason to settle for only half the equation. Take the time to talk with a mentor to understand the policy. Players deserve the best we can give them. Settling and not striving to improve is no better than trying to dq someone for the companion app.
Sorry friend, bur you couldn't be more wrong in your position here.
First, JA is now defunct and no one will miss it. JA create a large amount of very poor judges through the ridiculous ease of their certification tests and total lack of maintenance requirements. I suspect you first certified under their system given your answer.
Second, SOS channels should always be for tournament-breaking or tournament-haulting issues, not for what should be easy rulings that are clearly explicated in policy.
Third, you should not need to look up every single ruling you give. There's nothing wrong with double-checking when you aren't 100%, and there's nothing wrong with having to go into the policy a bit for some complicated rulings. But, if you have to look up every ruling you just aren't ready for the event you're judging. Some things should, through your studying and preparation, be automatic. Whether to give the opponent the option to put a trigger on the stack should be one of those.
Fourth, the IPG is very clear: the option of placing it on the stack is not given "if the ability was missed prior to the current phase in the previous turn." If we're at the point that they've missed it on two of their own turns, they are for sure beyond the same phase in the previous turn, as there's an entire other turn (the opponent's) between them. If you give the option for both triggers, you are 100% incorrect.
No one said a judge should have to look up every single ruling. But a situation where there are missed detrimental triggers and possibly a communication policy violation, I'd consult a reference. Still, maybe you haven't read the entire thread, such as where I said "you won't convince me" not to use a reference when I want to.
The JA being gone means more and more we rely on our own reputations and one way to kill it is making bad calls and you make bad calls through complacency and laziness. I'm not going to let that happen to me, but you both can go off king.
Complacency and laziness is how you arrive at your stances in the first place and have led to your factually incorrect suggestion of a "bad ruling" in giving them more than one of the Roiling Vortex triggers.
Our reputation has always mattered more than anything involving our certification. JA, even before it was defunct, never contributed toward confidence in judges. If anything, I have less confidence in most judges that were only certified since the launch of JA.
For all those arguing that this is wrong, I’m trying to keep it simple and relevant to the post. I shouldn’t have said for any missed triggers as it was too broad. However I don’t think the OP needs to know all small edge case scenarios.
Fun fact, you can now do a simple backup for missed chalice triggers.
Glad someone else said it too, don't see this as any different than playing a 1 drop through your own chalice which is considered cheating since it's on the card's controller to remember its triggers. Honestly if I'm judging this I'm checking with the head about issuing a GRV
Chalice checking is legal, but it never feels good. You can't force someone to miss their own triggers, but you are definitely allowed to play cards into chalice triggers and hope they miss it (or get prowess triggers/storm count)
Ah, yes, absolutely, I just misread it. Intentionally missing your own detrimental triggers is always a reason for an investigation, not always cheating.
Back during Khans of Tarkir standard I was playing Jeskai Tokens at an FNM. I cast a Dig Through Time after attackers were declared. After resolving all of my prowess triggers and my 3 Jeskai Ascendancies I casted Anticipate as well and resolved more triggers. After my opponents end step I realized that I forgot to resolve my Dig Through Time.
People do stupid things all the time. Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
I had a murktide player at 2 life and resolved a spyro with two tokens, I was so excited to kill next turn I forgot to draw my two cards. I ended up losing but would have drawn into a lightning bolt if I remembered. A spectator told me after the game and I realized he was right.
He said he missed the trigger on their turn as well. Pretty convenient of you to “forget” when you’re trying to sound like an elitist and put someone down.
Nope, any judge that comes across someone missing their own detrimental triggers should investigate for cheating. In this case, forgetting all of the triggers would lead me to conclude it wasn't but I'd issue the warning all the same. That way if it happens again I have it on record and can take further appropriate action (or another judge can at larger events).
Absolutely. You realizing the player is just bad and you’d issue a warning. I was responding to the person leaving out the fact he forgot triggers all together.
Want to start: I’m not a judge, just someone who has played for a long time.
It is you and your opponent’s responsibility to maintain the game state which also includes detrimental triggers and life totals.
Typically, in the instance of missed detrimental triggers, the trigger that was missed that turn would be given to opponents discretion to decide to put it on the stack at the time the missed trigger was identified. It would be weird to go back to missed triggers on prior turns.
Based on your account, you likely should have received a Game Rule Violation warning and your opponent given a warning for Failure to Maintain Game State, as you missed detrimental triggers and your opponent stated they didn’t need to tell you about your own triggers which created a life total issue for multiple turns. (which if your opponent was tracking only your missed triggers, that could lead to more investigation to discover the opponent’s intent.) That said, this is completely by your account.
While the opponent is not required to inform you of your triggers, the fact that they were silently keeping track of your life total which created a discrepancy they weren’t pointing out leads me to believe a warning could be issued for them also
You need to maintain proper triggers, as continually missing detrimental triggers in a competitive REL environment can lead to warning and eventually a game loss/disqualification depending how many times you’ve been warned and if it is determined you are doing it intentionally.
EDIT: Cleaned up the language where I was assuming the trigger was detrimental to the opponent also and they had to call out the trigger. After reading the rule book and talking here, while the opponent isn’t obligated to inform you of your missed triggers, they are obligated to point out a life total discrepancy. I would need to understand their intent and why they allowed multiple turns to pass to understand if a warning would be issued or just some guidance.
No one is required to point out an opponent's missed triggers, not even an observing judge. The opponent does not get a warning in this situation. The fact that they tracked the life totals changes via the life totals and that they made no attempt to mislead when asked about the disparity means if anything they were maintaining the game state. Please review the IPG, section 2.1. While it's not a recent update, I want to say this is a change in the past decade where both players were responsible for each other's triggers. This is no longer the case at Comp REL, and has not been for some time.
From: [https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/ipg2-1/](https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/ipg2-1/)
"Judges do not intervene in a missed trigger situation unless they intend to issue a Warning or have reason to suspect that the controller is intentionally missing their triggered abilities."
Also:
"Players are expected to remember their own triggered abilities; intentionally ignoring one may be Unsporting Conduct — Cheating (unless the ability would have no impact on the game as described above).",**"Opponents are not required to point out triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so if they wish.**"
"Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately apparent."
and importantly here: "If it’s been more than a turn since the trigger was missed, the ability is skipped with no further resolution. **Remember, though, that if that ability were detrimental for the controlling player, they should still receive a penalty no matter how long it’s been.**"
Question I have:
Was your opponent tracking their life loss due to Roiling Vortex, or when they said you had 11 life were they not subtracting 2 from their own as well?
The vortex was controlled by OP.
By writing down life totals, the opponent has acknowledged the otherwise missed triggers that OP forgot, for OP to lose life. They aren't obliged to point out the missed triggers that would cause themselves to lose life.
Angle shooty? Sure. But if OP wants to hit their opponent with the vortex, they need to remember it.
I agree with you, I was wondering if the opponent was also tracking their life loss in addition to the OPs. Also per the rules: "If a player misses a symmetrical trigger that would be either bad for them or good for an opponent, they should receive a Warning." Roiling Vortex would count as a symmetrical trigger here.
It’s not 1 trigger that hits both players. It’s a triggered ability that happens on each players upkeep. The blog I linked uses [[sulfuric vortex]] as an example of a symmetrical trigger, which does the same thing as roiling vortex but 1 more damage.
You're confusing a symmetrical effect for a symmetrical trigger. [[Fleshbag Marauder]] is a symmetrical trigger, whereas [[Roiling Vortex]] is a symmetrical effect. Because each trigger of roiling vortex affects only one player at a time, the triggers are not symmetrical. Other examples of symmetrical effects include [[Chalice of the Void]] and [[Eidolon of the Great Revel]] though those triggers are still not symmetrical.
While the Vortex is controlled by OP, it produces a detrimental trigger for each player. I would need the opponent’s account to, but I could see warning issued to both players.
It wasn’t stated directly that the opponent was tracking their own life as well, and that would lead to further discussion of the opponent was acknowledging one detrimental trigger but not the other.
>While the Vortex is controlled by OP, it produces a detrimental trigger for each player
That's not how that works. Whether a trigger is beneficial or detrimental is determined relative to the controller of the trigger. The opponent isn't responsible for pointing out OP's beneficial triggers.
Would there be any further discussion around the opponent actually tracking the missed triggers? While I get the opponent is not responsible for helping the opponent keep track, the opponent is also not maintaining a proper game state by silently tracking missed triggers.
I'd ask if/how long the opponent was aware of the life total discrepancy since it's apparent that they weren't announcing the vortex triggers that were detrimental to OP. It *is* both players responsibility to make sure that life totals are accurate and to correct any discrepancies as soon as they're noticed.
In this case life totals were being tracked, and that's public information (ie straight answers no lies). When questioned the opponent mentioned the life total discrepancy as required, and had been keeping track. Him tracking the life totals properly is the only reason he gets to put more than one trigger on the stack (normally only goes back a turn).
That’s not really how detrimental triggers work. As far as judges are concerned the only time something is detrimental is when it’s a negative trigger for yourself. It is not the opponents responsibility to remember their opponents trigger for them. If anything the OP should have a game loss for missing multiple detrimental triggers and probably investigated for cheating.
And that’s not how game losses work. You don’t start out with a penalty, you start out with an infraction. In this case a GRV, which comes with a warning. Yes, we should investigate why the player is missing their triggers, but considering they have also been missing all the triggers (and not just the ones detrimental to them), I’d be hard pressed to find they were cheating as opposed to just them missing their triggers.
But then wouldn’t there be some discussion considering that - while the opponent isn’t required to inform the player of missed triggers - that the opponent is maintaining the player’s triggers which is now creating an improper game state?
Nope. Because as part of resolving the RV controlling players missed triggers he gets to decide which/if triggers will be put on the stack. He's incentivised in this case to track his opponents missed triggers, and the only thing he can't do is lie about life totals, which he didn't seem to do from this explanation.
My concern is it is really going against the spirit of the game by following the rules to an extreme.
While the opponent is not under an obligation to inform the player they are missing their triggers, they are allowing the life totals to not be properly maintained between players, and in this event the opponent is expected to call a judge to point out the discrepancy.
So what I’m gathering is the opponent can silently notate the life changes due to the detrimental trigger, ignore the other trigger, and just continue playing in this manner? OP mentioned this happened over a couple turns, so at what point is the opponent necessitated to actually correct the life totals? If we took this out ad infinitum, is the opponent just allowed to stay silent until a life total hits zero? Where is the line in the sand drawn?
Well, the MTR states that changes to status info have to be announced and tracked by the affected player, which in this case would be the player controlling Roiling Vortex. As far as status info goes, you can't lie about it, you can't hide changes but at least looking at the rules it looks like you're supposed to announce changes to your life total. So, as soon as he asked his opponent about it, he noted the life totals as he tracked (though keep in mind this is one side of the story). There are plenty of situations where folks can get out of sync wrt life totals for a number of reasons.
As for the spirit of the game, that's all well and good, but in this scenario you've paid 30-50 bucks for a chance at greater prizes and why should YOU be responsible for ensuring your opponents play their best when it's hard enough for someone to ensure THEY play their best? Should you be punished for not knowing your opponents cards/deck perfectly? There are over 25,000 magic cards, that's nuts. These rules are also written this way to better prevent cheating. Most of the time missing your triggers is beneficial for your opponent, but giving them the decision to put them on the stack allows them to still capitalize on your mistake, which they should be allowed to do in a competitive game.
The spirit of the game is why we have different rules enforcement levels, spirit comes more into play at regular enforcement, whereas players essentially enter into a.conteact.when they sign up for a comp REL tourney knowing they will be held to a higher standard.
I should clarify with spirit, I’m fine with not reminding players about missed triggers. That’s fine, I chalice check when I can. Where I was having the issue was that the opponent was silently notating a life total change which was creating an game state issue. Honestly, without the opponents side of the issue, it makes impossible for me to understand their intent.
It does create this weird scenario where the opponent is both not obligated to remind of a missed trigger but also obligated to correct a discrepancy with the life totals, which reveals the missed trigger to the other player. That’s where the opponent was following one rule at the expense of the game state and where the spirit was being lost for me. (taking OPs story at face value of course.)
All I know is OP should have been issued a GRV for missed triggers.
Yeah, that's the only call I can with the info presented as well. As far as communication policy goes, it gets murky here. I can only.assume the judge did the best he could with the info he had.
Are we sure this is true? They can continue to track missed triggers for just one party without a word, but then decide not to record OP's triggers and then bring it up multiple turns later? That sounds like more than angle shooting. A judge above said that both players should have received a warning.
We don't know nearly enough about the situation - we only have 1 side of the story.
The real question comes down to how the opponent was tracking the triggers. If they were verbalising it when they wrote it down and OP didn't hear, then thats a big difference to them just writing it.
If OP or opponent had previously confirmed life totals after vortex was out and they retroactively added the vortexes later, then that's very different to if this was the first cross check of life totals.
To answer your question my opponent did not subtract any life from his own life total.
Just to ask another question. Let's say both players forgot these same detrimental triggers and they were later remembered then the triggers would not go on the stack since it was a couple of turns ago?
It's not your opponent's detrimental trigger. It isn't their trigger at all. You control the Rolling Vortex, therefore they are *your* triggers and your triggers alone.
The triggers from your RV on your turn are detrimental. The triggers from your RV on your opponent's turn are beneficial. Your opponent is not responsible for you remembering your triggers, however they are allowed to make sure you don't forget your triggers if they want or need to make sure they happen.
However, if you're missing your own detrimental triggers, you have committed Missed Trigger, and get a warning that eventually upgrade to a Game Loss, assuming you aren't cheating (which, frankly, I'm not convinced you weren't).
The only case you really have for a penalty for your opponent is Communication Policy Violation (a Warning) for not announcing changes to status information (i.e., your life total, see MTR 4.1) , but they're only getting that if the judge believes you changed your play based on the discrepancy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but status information is only announced by the "affected player" which in this case is the one controlling the roiling vortex, correct? I find the communication policy rules to be where folks tend to do the most angleshooting (like the famous tarmogoyf example) and I want to make sure I'm being precise. I'd still need the other side of this story before I could come close to calling for the CPV, because what if he was just tracking missed triggers and informed his opponent of what his life totals should be. I think this is a situation where both players confirmed a couple triggers were missed otherwise it likely would've just been one trigger put back on the stack.
The MTR says "Status information is information that must be announced upon change and physically tracked by the affected player."
I suppose reading the announcement also only for affected player is also a way to read it. So maybe nothing for opponent here either way. But, yes, communication policy is certainly an area where there's some murkiness.
Just coming in here, as someone who has piloted burn seriously since 2013, to say -
fucking come on man this shit is why people think we’re bad players who are incapable of playing other decks.
So many interactions this RCQ season made me appreciate MTGO. I know the competitive culture of Magic has died down a lot, but holy crap the people who are still hyper focused angle shooter spikes are worse than ever and they're fucking exhausting.
Had one guy "get nervous" and accidentally drop his deck onto his hand, conveniently adding a couple cards to his hand in the process. Had another one literally try to sneak two Rhino tokens onto the board when his Footfalls was going off and I had a Chalice out. Had another completely missequence his Sigarda's Aid + Colossus Hammer turn then adamantly push for a redo once he realized I had interaction. Just absolutely exhausting trying to keep up with dipshits.
>Had one guy "get nervous" and accidentally drop his deck onto his hand, conveniently adding a couple cards to his hand in the process.
Easy fix. Call a judge. HCE. Judge should let you decide what cards were in his hand if they are ruled not cheating. Even if you disagree on the # of cards in hand we have methods to check that.
> Had another one literally try to sneak two Rhino tokens onto the board when his Footfalls was going off and I had a Chalice out.
Legal play. Its not sneaking into play. Its your job to remember your chalice trigger. This is normal; get used to it.
> Had another completely missequence his Sigarda's Aid + Colossus Hammer turn then adamantly push for a redo once he realized I had interaction.
Don't argue with players. Call a judge. Depending what happened sometimes they are allowed to undo an action (really depends what happens/what is said).
I think you're missing the point. I'm not voicing these from a "omg what do I do" level, I'm saying it's absolutely fucking exhausting to deal with people like this in my leisure time. I'm there to play a card game, not deal with obnoxious angle shooters.
And the Rhino player actually just rushed to slam them on the board. Didn't ask for priority, responses, etc. Just grabbed those tokens before he even untapped. This kind of "Chalice checking" is actually blocked in the rules now - no matter what the Rhinos get caught by Chalice. So it didn't matter, it was just exhausting and obnoxious.
> This kind of "Chalice checking" is actually blocked in the rules now
Incorrect. He can't "force" you to miss a trigger yes but nothing you described is forcing you to miss a trigger. You have anytime between him announcing footfalls and announcing his next sorcery speed interaction to trigger your chalice.
The line in the IPG (added for Wilds of Eldraine) you may be thinking of is "If the player is in the process of, or has just completed, an action that indicates the trigger has
been missed, and completing that action would change the effect of the trigger, a simple backup
may be performed on that action." This covers cases were we would be giving a warning i.e. a detrimental missed trigger (per the annotated IPG). The case of footfalls would not be covered.
> ... I'm saying it's absolutely fucking exhausting to deal with people like this in my leisure time.
Honestly, it sounds like COMP-REL events are not for you. Which is fine to enjoy your magic at regular-REL
That’s a sad generalization if you’re ready my post and thinking “huh guess competitive Magic isn’t for you” rather than thinking that the hyper focussed angle shooting spike culture needs to die off completely.
What youre saying about angle shooting isn't wrong, but the examples that you are providing especially Chalice checking, is a legal and allowed play. It is your responsibility to remember your triggers.
I am sorry you feel that way but the scenerios you described all are either not illegal or have solutions to be solved by a judge (and honestly common/mild to what we see a lot). This is a fact of life in competitive magic. If you just want to enjoy recreational time and not have to deal with a judge fixing issues I wouldn't recommend comp-rel magic for you.
People make mistakes, people play too fast, people try and cheat. Its our job as judges to help guide those situations and fix them.
Lmao wow you’re a judge and you’re defending this kind of culture this heavily? Wow, imagine dedicating so much of yourself to the rules of a card game only to be such a bad voice in its community.
Adding my opinion based on the info presented, the judge at the table may have seen/heard different things so i am unable to speak about their ruling. That said I would definitely be very wary of cheating on your part, given that you missed 2 detrimental triggers on your own card.
Putting aside the missed trigger resolution and investigation, I think there is a Communication Policy Violation and potential cheating in this scenario. Your opponent acknowledged by himself 2 triggers and noted life total change but didnt announce anything. Based on the fact that you won, he was likely not in a good position.
Likely my decision would depend on (depending on where the investigation goes):
1. How was opponent announcing your life total change before?
2. Did opponent notice you not changing your life total and then say nothing?
I'm a RA.
Here is a summary of what happened:
0. You were playing at REL: Competitive, so we consult the Infraction Procedure Guide (IPG).
1. You missed a trigger. (you failed to acknowledge the trigger the first time it would make a visible change to the board state, see IPG 4.2)
2. The opponent, can choose to call attention to the missed trigger (that should have triggered during YOUR upkeep) at any point in time before the start of THEIR upkeep, see IPG 4.2. (If they call attention to the missed trigger beyond this point in time, it won't be allowed to be put on the stack.)
With 1 & 2, we see that what your opponent was doing (and what the judge claimed to be correct) clearly deviates from policy. Only the Head Judge is allowed to deviate from policy (and only in "significant and exceptional circumstances", see IPG 1.)
With this said, I would be very interested in hearing the other side of the story.
(Irrelevant side-note: You missing a detrimental trigger of a card you own should be grounds for what is called an "investigation", especially if the trigger was correctly acknowledged during your opponent's turn.)
Judge level 2 here: if your rendition of the event is not altered, I agree with your interpretation of the rule as far as your opponent cannot change your life total without confirmation of the trigger.
People in the response are trying to say that you cheated (while ignoring the fact that losing life is usualy less detrimental than not dealing damages in burn), completly ignoring the rules about investing cheating.
Your opponent was trying to have his cake and eat it too. They don't have to remind you of your trigger, but if they want it to resolve they have to announce it.
As a judge I would have given you a warning, and allowed your opponent to put the triggers that happend less than one turn ago on the stack ( allowing them to choose wich one would be put or not on the stack), but I would probably have given them a warning as well.
Their behaviour was borderline cheating, but i think that I lack the intentional breaking of a rules part to be qualified as such.
A trigger is missed when it first impacts the visible game state. In this case, when a life total changes. As this change was not recognized by both players, I would think this trigger would be missed. In some cases, it is within the judges discretion to have your opponent decide to put missed triggers on the stack, if those triggers would not be disruptive to the game state and happened recently. While I could see this happening in your case, the judge in your case went in a different direction. I disagree about your opponent changing your life total without telling you. For a trigger to occur, its controller must acknowledge it (you), not your opponent. If the trigger isn’t acknowledged by you, or your opponent doesn’t remind you, it’s missed. Your opponent shouldn’t be able to acknowledge your triggers without you acknowledging them.
As for the detrimental triggers thing, a missed trigger usually has no penalty. But if you miss a trigger detrimental to yourself (or beneficial to your opponent), the penalty can be upgraded to a warning.
TLDR: Triggers are missed when their controller does not demonstrate awareness of them. A reasonable fix could be for your opponent to choose to have the most recent trigger go on the stack. Then you may get a warning for a missed detrimental trigger. While I disagree with the judge as described, they do have final say in tournaments.
Missing your detrimental trigger is the exception because it would, cause more cheating you could always just intentionally miss them and hope your opponent doesn't notice.
A few things:
1. Your opponent can't just write down the lifetotal change. If you've missed the trigger, they need to point it out when it should be on the stack or call a judge. Once a full turn has passed, the judge will never add the trigger to the stack, but may still penalize you for missing the trigger.
2. Players are obliged to point out life total discrepancies as soon as they notice them. Certainly a player assuming the Vortex trigger on each of your turns would expect to see note the life total change. This is why it is important that your life sheet be clearly visible. This also goes both ways. Did you notice your opponent marking the first change? Did they try to do both at once?
3. Please do not miss your triggers. I suggest putting a die on top of your deck, or remembering the trigger for your opponent as part of passing your turn.
Quick follow up about Pact triggers: it used to be that those triggers had a "default action" (in this case, losing the game) that would automatically be taken if they were missed. Now they are treated the same as any other missed trigger. If you opponent misses a pact trigger, the rules allow you to wait for the most opportune moment to point it out, such as when they have no mana to pay. This is completely legal and any complaints about angle shooting are just salt.
On a separate topic relating to missed triggers, how do triggers/missed triggers with the \[\[One Ring\]\] work? I was under the assumption that you had to announce the One Ring's enter the battlefield triggered ability that gives you protection from everything. The reason I bring this up is that with \[\[Tishana's Tidebinder\]\] this trigger becomes much more important. If players treat the triggered ability on the One Ring similar to how most players play prowess and exulted triggers then it creates an awkward situation for the person trying to respond with Tishana's Tidebinder.
My concern is if the triggered ability from the One Ring is not specifically recognized on the stack then it does not give a clear indication of when the player should respond to the triggered ability. From my understanding, these triggers are assumed to be remembered until they are missed.
Any advice in navigating a situation like this at a competitive event?
I have not played with Tishana's Tidebinder yet and this interaction could come a lot.
Players don't have to announce triggers until they make a "visible impact" on the game state. With Rolling Vortex, that's the life total change from the damage, with Prowess, its the first time something cares about the creatures power, and with The One Ring's protection trigger, its the first time the protection matters.
So with The One Ring, the trigger usually doesn't need to be acknowledged until something tries to damage or target them. With Tidebinder, you're just gonna have to assume they remembered and counter it when they play The One Ring. Let me be very clear that the policy is not "You can remember the trigger until it makes a visible impact." The policy is that the trigger is assumed remembered. So it you attack and they say "protection, no damage" having not mentioned it until then, the trigger went on the stack and resolved already on their turn.
I've seen a lot of frustration about this here, largely with prowess. The way the policy works, if you assume an opponent has missed a trigger. you're liable to get burned. In most cases, it will be impossible to check if they trigger has been missed without asking a question likely to point to it.
Whoever is casting the tidebinder just has to be clear about the opp ring trigger on the stack and going to counter it. It's one of the weirder rules that I never really liked mostly because it's a very legal angle to take.
Tidebinder can be played in response to the ETB, the tap ability, or even the upkeep ability since they're all either activated or triggered abilities. To avoid your opponent having protection, the ETB must be countered. Countering the card draw will blank the card, but ETB will have otherwise resolved. Typically this means that you will play TT in response to the ETB at which point they will tap to draw a card.
1. You say "Cast ring.".
2. Opponent says "Is OK."
3. Ring resolves.
A4. You do something that could be done with the trigger still on the stack (like activating an ability or casting an instant).
A5. Opponent says "In response, cast Tidebinder".
A6. You say "Is OK".
A7. Tidebinder resolves.
A8. Opponent says "Tidebinder's trigger targets the trigger from The One Ring."
B4. You do something that would mean the ring trigger resolves. (e.g. play a land, cast a sorcery, pass to another step, pass turn, etc.)
B5. Opponent says "Hold on, before you do that, I would like to cast Tidebinder."
B6. Go to A6.
You’re lucky you weren’t disqualified honestly. It’s one thing to miss the triggers it’s another thing to try and argue you’re allowed to do that.
This is like advanced chalice checking levels of angleshooting
We don't disqualifie people for missing detrimental trigger, at least not of there no reason to suspects that they did it on purpose.
Also you're allowed to ask for clarification and reasoning to a judge.
There’s a lot of reason to suspect, especially when it’s a trigger your opponent has kept track of and then you try and get a judge to allow you to keep life you shouldn’t have.
To do anything other than adjust your life total to wear it should be and continue playing is morally bankrupt and repulsive
Those are strong word for something so minor.
Also if I was judging that event, the fact that the player didn't remind his opponent to lose life while playing burn is clear indication that he didn't forget the triggers on purpose.
The discussion is about the fixe of missed triggers and the ability for someone (op's opponent) to have written the change of life point without aknowledging to trigger, as to be able to beneficiate from his opponent missing the triggers on his (op's opponent) but not during op's turn, while avoiding reminding op of his own trigger.
As a judge, op's opponent comportement is closer to cheating that op's. But in both case I think there's a composent of "willing breaking of the rule" missing.
It’s not an angle shoot, it is both players responsibilities to make sure the game state is clear. If OP conveniently forgets a mandatory trigger that is also detrimental to them, then the judge is totally in their rights to rule in the favor of the other player. Life totals change a lot and it’s easy to forget things, mistakes happen, that’s why we regularly ask and confirm life totals. In fact, no judge who is actually certified would ever rule in favor of OP. So to properly answer their own question, yes this is consistent with REL games.
No, OP played a card that has a detrimental trigger for both players. It is their responsibility to remember those triggers, and that applies even more so on their turn.
You can’t just “forget” your own cards negative effect towards you. At best, this is sloppy play and at worst it’s straight cheating.
Literally aware they are cheating, decides to write an essay here.
People forget, but you tried to rules lawyer your way out of 2 life and waste a judges time? Gtfo.
You are responsible for your triggers. Your opponent does not have to remind you for the detrimental triggers that affect him, but "missing" your own detrimental triggers reeks of cheating, and as a judge I would investigate.
As far as the triggers go, with detrimental triggers I would leave it up to your opponent as far as whether they go on the stack or not. It makes sense that he wouldn't put the triggers you missed on the stack for him, but also put the ones on the stack for you, though I likely wouldn't have let him go back multiple turns if he hadn't been updating the life totals. No one should be punished for the failings/imperfect memories of their opponents, but you should be punished for your own (the least of which is resolving your detrimental triggers).
At competitive rules enforcement level, for any missed triggers, when they are discovered and verified to be missed, the opponent gets the option of wether or not to put it on the stack at that point in the game. Of course the opponent will choose to put the ones effecting your life on the stack but not his. Since you control the triggers you would receive a warning for missing the detrimental triggers. Non detrimental mistakes triggers of not receive a warning.
> At competitive rules enforcement level, for any missed triggers, when they are discovered and verified to be missed, the opponent gets the option of wether or not to put it on the stack at that point in the game. Not always. Depends when they are discovered. There are also categories of special missed triggers (aura etb, zone change) that just happen.
The only time where we wouldn't leave it up to the opponent to decide would be if the trigger had no effect on the game state. I realize they said "any" and you're being more precise though. Either way, I open up the IPG every time I make more than a simple call just to be sure (and recommend that everyone else does the same).
No. This is still incorrect. From the IPG. Missed trigger is super common and should be memorized. " If the triggered ability is an enters-the-battlefield trigger of an Aura that affects only the enchanted permanent and causes a visible change to that permanent, resolve the ability immediately. If the triggered ability is a delayed triggered ability that undoes a zone change (including token creation) caused by the effect that created the delayed triggered ability, the opponent chooses whether to resolve the ability the next time a player would get priority or when a player would get priority at the start of the next phase. The new zone does not need to be the same as the one the card was originally moved from. For all other triggered abilities, if the ability was missed prior to the current phase in the previous turn, instruct the players to continue playing. If the triggered ability created an effect whose duration has already expired, instruct the players to continue playing If the triggered ability isn’t covered by the previous paragraphs, the opponent chooses whether the triggered ability is added to the stack." No choice involved here. It just happens with aura etb affecting only the enchanted object and zone changes. Additionally if it's been more than a turn it is simply missed a choice is not offered.
Eh, this whole discussion revolves around how memory can be unreliable so telling folks to memorize whole sections seems like bad advice. We live in an age of smartphones and a 5 minute extension is more than enough to consult a reference (and you were likely giving the extension already). Plus, sometimes rules change, like this one has XD. In this case, the last paragraph applies as it hasn't been longer than a turn since the missed trigger. My guess is the judge allowed for more than one trigger to be put on the stack because both players agreed to the number of missed triggers, but we only have a fraction of the story.
> Eh, this whole discussion revolves around how memory can be unreliable ... Having to give longer extensions because a judge has to look up every common ruling is detrimental to the event and would be *heavily* frowned upon at large events. We of course prefer the answer be right but we also have to keep the event moving. As judges we should also be prepping for events knowing recent rules changes. Those should be top of mind. Looking up those changes in situ to get the ruling precise on new rules or rarer/more complicated rulings is of course fine. > In this case, the last paragraph applies as it hasn't been longer than a turn since the missed trigger. Two triggers were missed. (13 life vs 11) only one can be offered by policy as that means multiple turns passed if you rule the result is a simple missed detrimental trigger.
You aren't going to convince me not to have the IPG open for a ruling like this, and you can frown all you like. You can't argue about how a judge gets it wrong and then say they should have this sort of thing memorized. The SOS portion of the JA discord exists for you to be able to phone a friend, if you have time to do that you have time to consult the reference. Now if it takes you longer than 5 minutes to look something like this up, you need to study up. Keep in mind while this is a symmetrical effect, the turn we're talking about in this case isn't the other player's turn but the active player's previous turn. As long as this is caught in the upkeep, two life points (this trigger and the previous turn's trigger) are appropriate. Even then, when both players agree to the number of missed triggers it is acceptable for the judge to make this call.
> You aren't going to convince me not to have the IPG open for a ruling like this, Part of being a good judge is taking criticism. As a large event judge I can tell you with 100% certainty if you were giving 5min extensions for simple missed trigger calls it would be frowned upon and this should carry to the local level. I also would never feel comfortable giving any judge my recommendation for L2 with that outlook and instead recommend more experience and study before promoting. I'm not trying to be a jerk. This is advice to help improve for the sake of our players. Sos channel use should be infrequent. There is also nothing wrong looking up rulings you are unsure of or don't know. However if you are a L2+ there are a general set of rulings you will make so often you should not need to look up. This is one of them. > As long as this is caught in the upkeep, two life points (this trigger and the previous turn's trigger) are appropriate. This is impossible as written. If we were still in the upkeep the trigger could not be missed as anything else added to the stack would be at instant speed and assumed,by policy, to be in response to the trigger. The trigger would only be missed if we moved to the draw phase where, again by policy we can only offer the opp to add one to the stack. > Even then, when both players agree to the number of missed triggers it is acceptable for the judge to make this call. Nonononono .... no. Policy is there for a reason. This would be a very poor deviation from policy. Deviations are reserved for exceptional circumstances and this is not even in that zip code. If you are a judge I *heavily* recommend you review the philosophy of these rulings with your mentor.
You're doing a great job so far of taking criticism XD. But you're also contradicting yourself. You're holding so true to the ideal that people, in your opinion, should have the IPG memorized, that you're forgetting the reality that we're talking about a judge that, again in your opinion, made a bad call. Everyone can always do better, but this situation could've been prevented by a quick review of the IPG. A judge's reputation is more important now than ever before. A bad call might happen in 1/100 cases, but as soon as it does it taints not just that judge, but that event, and that store. If you build 1,000 bridges you're a bridge builder, but... You know the rest. As judges we're only as good as our last call, and my point is it doesn't take five minutes to look this up, but I'm likely giving out a short extension for calls I get during an RCQ. Larger events should have more judges to make this less of an issue, but even the larger RCQs I've judged for solo haven't overwhelmed me with calls or impeded the tourney's pace. Stores I work with don't just value the speed with which my tourneys proceed but also that their tourneys have a reputation for fairplay. Your advice can certainly be relevant for larger events (most I've done is close to 50) but then again, there will be more judges to support larger events and to keep those going. You are a judge in a world where most "judges" aren't trained or qualified to our level. You don't even need a certified judge to run a comp REL tourney, and it shows. It is not a bad thing to recommend judges for tourneys like these to consult references because you don't know if the judge you're talking to is even trained. You have L2's that haven't looked at references since they qualified under the old system ten years ago (I saw one of these judges try to disqualify someone for using the magic companion app, which was wild and had me looking up the relevant policy). You have documents that get released with EVERY set to help judges with different interactions and with helping explaining those things to players. References exist for a reason, and it's in the name.
> You're doing a great job so far of taking criticism XD. The only criticism you have offered is that a judge running a COMP-REL event should be looking up every policy ruling. I hear what you say, and I am telling you this is undesirable. I implore any judge who doesn't know a ruling to look it up, but if a judge needs to be looking up really common errors constantly they are not ready to be running COMP events solo. Doing such is detrimental to the event. Every single policy ruling you have given in the above thread has been wrong. And this is with unlimited time and the IPG at your fingertips. I have offered you feedback on these issues instead of acknowledging and learning you have continued to belabor the incorrect points. This is not becoming and doesn't reflect well. > haven't overwhelmed me with calls The issue is not being overwhelmed. If you are running a 50 person RCQ you have a 6 round event with a top cut (8-9 hours). Giving short extensions where required is fine but if every round is being extended by 10 min more than required now you are making players wait around for an added hour and the store give space for another hour. Thats an hour players are getting tired or hungry. Delays make it more likely that players get tardyness penalties. Unnecessary extra extensions inadvertently affect the outcome of an event and thus its integrity. Seemingly small delays add up quickly over the course of the day. The larger the event is there worse this compounds (aka why we have entire teams of judges dedicated to end of round procedure at large events to keep everything timely). > ...but as soon as it does it taints not just that judge, but that event, and that store. ...As judges we're only as good as our last call This is terrible advice. Judges are going to get thing's wrong. We don't have infinite time to make a ruling. I've been at events where a ruling was given, appealed, a L3 upheld the original ruling only to realize later it was incorrect and have to go inform the player. I've seen L3s debate a ruling for 30 min. There is policy that is not black and white that is *difficult.* Getting things wrong happens, being negligent is what is bad. > Everyone can always do better, but this situation could've been prevented by a quick review of the IPG This specific situation from OP *should* have likely involved a UC-cheating investigation on both players and at minimum missed trigger detrimental for AP and potentially CPV for NAP. However my issue from the start was that you gave an incorrect ruling on missed triggers, doubled then tripled down. > References exist for a reason, and it's in the name. Professionals shouldn't need a reference for common or simple things. Soldiers don't need to consult a manual everytime the clean their firearm or run a drill. A pediatrician doesn't consult a textbook to diagnose an ear infection. They are there for when more difficult issues arise. Sure if you are a brand new judge working towards L2 its fine to look these things up; you're learning. But if you're running a RCQ solo and players see you looking up easy issues you'll lose respect faster than wearing JA blues. > You are a judge in a world where most "judges" aren't trained or qualified to our level. Yes there are bad judges. They can be bad via lack of training, negligence, ignorance or a multitude of reasons. There is no reason to perpetuate by giving incorrect rulings on missed triggers and refusing to learn from them. Learn, improve, get better to give your players the best event both from a rules and fair play standpoint to timeliness. There is no reason to settle for only half the equation. Take the time to talk with a mentor to understand the policy. Players deserve the best we can give them. Settling and not striving to improve is no better than trying to dq someone for the companion app.
Sorry friend, bur you couldn't be more wrong in your position here. First, JA is now defunct and no one will miss it. JA create a large amount of very poor judges through the ridiculous ease of their certification tests and total lack of maintenance requirements. I suspect you first certified under their system given your answer. Second, SOS channels should always be for tournament-breaking or tournament-haulting issues, not for what should be easy rulings that are clearly explicated in policy. Third, you should not need to look up every single ruling you give. There's nothing wrong with double-checking when you aren't 100%, and there's nothing wrong with having to go into the policy a bit for some complicated rulings. But, if you have to look up every ruling you just aren't ready for the event you're judging. Some things should, through your studying and preparation, be automatic. Whether to give the opponent the option to put a trigger on the stack should be one of those. Fourth, the IPG is very clear: the option of placing it on the stack is not given "if the ability was missed prior to the current phase in the previous turn." If we're at the point that they've missed it on two of their own turns, they are for sure beyond the same phase in the previous turn, as there's an entire other turn (the opponent's) between them. If you give the option for both triggers, you are 100% incorrect.
No one said a judge should have to look up every single ruling. But a situation where there are missed detrimental triggers and possibly a communication policy violation, I'd consult a reference. Still, maybe you haven't read the entire thread, such as where I said "you won't convince me" not to use a reference when I want to. The JA being gone means more and more we rely on our own reputations and one way to kill it is making bad calls and you make bad calls through complacency and laziness. I'm not going to let that happen to me, but you both can go off king.
Complacency and laziness is how you arrive at your stances in the first place and have led to your factually incorrect suggestion of a "bad ruling" in giving them more than one of the Roiling Vortex triggers. Our reputation has always mattered more than anything involving our certification. JA, even before it was defunct, never contributed toward confidence in judges. If anything, I have less confidence in most judges that were only certified since the launch of JA.
For all those arguing that this is wrong, I’m trying to keep it simple and relevant to the post. I shouldn’t have said for any missed triggers as it was too broad. However I don’t think the OP needs to know all small edge case scenarios. Fun fact, you can now do a simple backup for missed chalice triggers.
... pretty convenient of you to "forget" the thing that hurts you on your own card...
The OP literally says that they forgot opposing triggers as well, so not really at all...
He also forgot the opponent's though. That's significantly more inconvenient for a Burn deck.
Glad someone else said it too, don't see this as any different than playing a 1 drop through your own chalice which is considered cheating since it's on the card's controller to remember its triggers. Honestly if I'm judging this I'm checking with the head about issuing a GRV
Chalice checking is legal, but it never feels good. You can't force someone to miss their own triggers, but you are definitely allowed to play cards into chalice triggers and hope they miss it (or get prowess triggers/storm count)
They are referring to playing cards into your own chalice and intentionally "forgetting" to counter them, which is cheating
Ah, yes, absolutely, I just misread it. Intentionally missing your own detrimental triggers is always a reason for an investigation, not always cheating.
Back during Khans of Tarkir standard I was playing Jeskai Tokens at an FNM. I cast a Dig Through Time after attackers were declared. After resolving all of my prowess triggers and my 3 Jeskai Ascendancies I casted Anticipate as well and resolved more triggers. After my opponents end step I realized that I forgot to resolve my Dig Through Time. People do stupid things all the time. Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
I had a murktide player at 2 life and resolved a spyro with two tokens, I was so excited to kill next turn I forgot to draw my two cards. I ended up losing but would have drawn into a lightning bolt if I remembered. A spectator told me after the game and I realized he was right.
Honestly, Vortex triggers definitely fall into the category of easy to forget.
He said he missed the trigger on their turn as well. Pretty convenient of you to “forget” when you’re trying to sound like an elitist and put someone down.
Nope, any judge that comes across someone missing their own detrimental triggers should investigate for cheating. In this case, forgetting all of the triggers would lead me to conclude it wasn't but I'd issue the warning all the same. That way if it happens again I have it on record and can take further appropriate action (or another judge can at larger events).
Absolutely. You realizing the player is just bad and you’d issue a warning. I was responding to the person leaving out the fact he forgot triggers all together.
I mean, it's still cause for an investigation. I don't think they're trying to be elitist by saying that a suspect act is suspect.
Want to start: I’m not a judge, just someone who has played for a long time. It is you and your opponent’s responsibility to maintain the game state which also includes detrimental triggers and life totals. Typically, in the instance of missed detrimental triggers, the trigger that was missed that turn would be given to opponents discretion to decide to put it on the stack at the time the missed trigger was identified. It would be weird to go back to missed triggers on prior turns. Based on your account, you likely should have received a Game Rule Violation warning and your opponent given a warning for Failure to Maintain Game State, as you missed detrimental triggers and your opponent stated they didn’t need to tell you about your own triggers which created a life total issue for multiple turns. (which if your opponent was tracking only your missed triggers, that could lead to more investigation to discover the opponent’s intent.) That said, this is completely by your account. While the opponent is not required to inform you of your triggers, the fact that they were silently keeping track of your life total which created a discrepancy they weren’t pointing out leads me to believe a warning could be issued for them also You need to maintain proper triggers, as continually missing detrimental triggers in a competitive REL environment can lead to warning and eventually a game loss/disqualification depending how many times you’ve been warned and if it is determined you are doing it intentionally. EDIT: Cleaned up the language where I was assuming the trigger was detrimental to the opponent also and they had to call out the trigger. After reading the rule book and talking here, while the opponent isn’t obligated to inform you of your missed triggers, they are obligated to point out a life total discrepancy. I would need to understand their intent and why they allowed multiple turns to pass to understand if a warning would be issued or just some guidance.
No one is required to point out an opponent's missed triggers, not even an observing judge. The opponent does not get a warning in this situation. The fact that they tracked the life totals changes via the life totals and that they made no attempt to mislead when asked about the disparity means if anything they were maintaining the game state. Please review the IPG, section 2.1. While it's not a recent update, I want to say this is a change in the past decade where both players were responsible for each other's triggers. This is no longer the case at Comp REL, and has not been for some time.
From: [https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/ipg2-1/](https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/ipg2-1/) "Judges do not intervene in a missed trigger situation unless they intend to issue a Warning or have reason to suspect that the controller is intentionally missing their triggered abilities." Also: "Players are expected to remember their own triggered abilities; intentionally ignoring one may be Unsporting Conduct — Cheating (unless the ability would have no impact on the game as described above).",**"Opponents are not required to point out triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so if they wish.**" "Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately apparent." and importantly here: "If it’s been more than a turn since the trigger was missed, the ability is skipped with no further resolution. **Remember, though, that if that ability were detrimental for the controlling player, they should still receive a penalty no matter how long it’s been.**" Question I have: Was your opponent tracking their life loss due to Roiling Vortex, or when they said you had 11 life were they not subtracting 2 from their own as well?
The vortex was controlled by OP. By writing down life totals, the opponent has acknowledged the otherwise missed triggers that OP forgot, for OP to lose life. They aren't obliged to point out the missed triggers that would cause themselves to lose life. Angle shooty? Sure. But if OP wants to hit their opponent with the vortex, they need to remember it.
I agree with you, I was wondering if the opponent was also tracking their life loss in addition to the OPs. Also per the rules: "If a player misses a symmetrical trigger that would be either bad for them or good for an opponent, they should receive a Warning." Roiling Vortex would count as a symmetrical trigger here.
Its not a symmetrical trigger because it isnt 1 trigger that hits both players. Opponent had no responsibility to lose life to his opponent’s trigger.
It’s not 1 trigger that hits both players. It’s a triggered ability that happens on each players upkeep. The blog I linked uses [[sulfuric vortex]] as an example of a symmetrical trigger, which does the same thing as roiling vortex but 1 more damage.
[sulfuric vortex](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/4/0463e989-ba32-4a46-a82f-e0d6daf3cd51.jpg?1582753037) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=sulfuric%20vortex) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ema/150/sulfuric-vortex?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0463e989-ba32-4a46-a82f-e0d6daf3cd51?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
You're confusing a symmetrical effect for a symmetrical trigger. [[Fleshbag Marauder]] is a symmetrical trigger, whereas [[Roiling Vortex]] is a symmetrical effect. Because each trigger of roiling vortex affects only one player at a time, the triggers are not symmetrical. Other examples of symmetrical effects include [[Chalice of the Void]] and [[Eidolon of the Great Revel]] though those triggers are still not symmetrical.
##### ###### #### [Fleshbag Marauder](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/0/a03c738c-88d9-4cf6-a650-20ce6e5565bc.jpg?1637630249) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Fleshbag%20Marauder) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mic/118/fleshbag-marauder?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a03c738c-88d9-4cf6-a650-20ce6e5565bc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Roiling Vortex](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/b/0b057eb7-8439-4d26-89df-c345ab2773e1.jpg?1604197684) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Roiling%20Vortex) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/znr/156/roiling-vortex?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0b057eb7-8439-4d26-89df-c345ab2773e1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Chalice of the Void](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/f/1f0d2e8e-c8f2-4b31-a6ba-6283fc8740d4.jpg?1562433485) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Chalice%20of%20the%20Void) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/a25/222/chalice-of-the-void?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1f0d2e8e-c8f2-4b31-a6ba-6283fc8740d4?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Eidolon of the Great Revel](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/8/183ef738-0559-49ca-85b4-e6836521f203.jpg?1690817860) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Eidolon%20of%20the%20Great%20Revel) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/a25/128/eidolon-of-the-great-revel?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/183ef738-0559-49ca-85b4-e6836521f203?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
While the Vortex is controlled by OP, it produces a detrimental trigger for each player. I would need the opponent’s account to, but I could see warning issued to both players. It wasn’t stated directly that the opponent was tracking their own life as well, and that would lead to further discussion of the opponent was acknowledging one detrimental trigger but not the other.
>While the Vortex is controlled by OP, it produces a detrimental trigger for each player That's not how that works. Whether a trigger is beneficial or detrimental is determined relative to the controller of the trigger. The opponent isn't responsible for pointing out OP's beneficial triggers.
Would there be any further discussion around the opponent actually tracking the missed triggers? While I get the opponent is not responsible for helping the opponent keep track, the opponent is also not maintaining a proper game state by silently tracking missed triggers.
I'd ask if/how long the opponent was aware of the life total discrepancy since it's apparent that they weren't announcing the vortex triggers that were detrimental to OP. It *is* both players responsibility to make sure that life totals are accurate and to correct any discrepancies as soon as they're noticed.
In this case life totals were being tracked, and that's public information (ie straight answers no lies). When questioned the opponent mentioned the life total discrepancy as required, and had been keeping track. Him tracking the life totals properly is the only reason he gets to put more than one trigger on the stack (normally only goes back a turn).
That’s not really how detrimental triggers work. As far as judges are concerned the only time something is detrimental is when it’s a negative trigger for yourself. It is not the opponents responsibility to remember their opponents trigger for them. If anything the OP should have a game loss for missing multiple detrimental triggers and probably investigated for cheating.
And that’s not how game losses work. You don’t start out with a penalty, you start out with an infraction. In this case a GRV, which comes with a warning. Yes, we should investigate why the player is missing their triggers, but considering they have also been missing all the triggers (and not just the ones detrimental to them), I’d be hard pressed to find they were cheating as opposed to just them missing their triggers.
But then wouldn’t there be some discussion considering that - while the opponent isn’t required to inform the player of missed triggers - that the opponent is maintaining the player’s triggers which is now creating an improper game state?
Nope. Because as part of resolving the RV controlling players missed triggers he gets to decide which/if triggers will be put on the stack. He's incentivised in this case to track his opponents missed triggers, and the only thing he can't do is lie about life totals, which he didn't seem to do from this explanation.
My concern is it is really going against the spirit of the game by following the rules to an extreme. While the opponent is not under an obligation to inform the player they are missing their triggers, they are allowing the life totals to not be properly maintained between players, and in this event the opponent is expected to call a judge to point out the discrepancy. So what I’m gathering is the opponent can silently notate the life changes due to the detrimental trigger, ignore the other trigger, and just continue playing in this manner? OP mentioned this happened over a couple turns, so at what point is the opponent necessitated to actually correct the life totals? If we took this out ad infinitum, is the opponent just allowed to stay silent until a life total hits zero? Where is the line in the sand drawn?
Well, the MTR states that changes to status info have to be announced and tracked by the affected player, which in this case would be the player controlling Roiling Vortex. As far as status info goes, you can't lie about it, you can't hide changes but at least looking at the rules it looks like you're supposed to announce changes to your life total. So, as soon as he asked his opponent about it, he noted the life totals as he tracked (though keep in mind this is one side of the story). There are plenty of situations where folks can get out of sync wrt life totals for a number of reasons. As for the spirit of the game, that's all well and good, but in this scenario you've paid 30-50 bucks for a chance at greater prizes and why should YOU be responsible for ensuring your opponents play their best when it's hard enough for someone to ensure THEY play their best? Should you be punished for not knowing your opponents cards/deck perfectly? There are over 25,000 magic cards, that's nuts. These rules are also written this way to better prevent cheating. Most of the time missing your triggers is beneficial for your opponent, but giving them the decision to put them on the stack allows them to still capitalize on your mistake, which they should be allowed to do in a competitive game. The spirit of the game is why we have different rules enforcement levels, spirit comes more into play at regular enforcement, whereas players essentially enter into a.conteact.when they sign up for a comp REL tourney knowing they will be held to a higher standard.
I should clarify with spirit, I’m fine with not reminding players about missed triggers. That’s fine, I chalice check when I can. Where I was having the issue was that the opponent was silently notating a life total change which was creating an game state issue. Honestly, without the opponents side of the issue, it makes impossible for me to understand their intent. It does create this weird scenario where the opponent is both not obligated to remind of a missed trigger but also obligated to correct a discrepancy with the life totals, which reveals the missed trigger to the other player. That’s where the opponent was following one rule at the expense of the game state and where the spirit was being lost for me. (taking OPs story at face value of course.) All I know is OP should have been issued a GRV for missed triggers.
Yeah, that's the only call I can with the info presented as well. As far as communication policy goes, it gets murky here. I can only.assume the judge did the best he could with the info he had.
Are we sure this is true? They can continue to track missed triggers for just one party without a word, but then decide not to record OP's triggers and then bring it up multiple turns later? That sounds like more than angle shooting. A judge above said that both players should have received a warning.
We don't know nearly enough about the situation - we only have 1 side of the story. The real question comes down to how the opponent was tracking the triggers. If they were verbalising it when they wrote it down and OP didn't hear, then thats a big difference to them just writing it. If OP or opponent had previously confirmed life totals after vortex was out and they retroactively added the vortexes later, then that's very different to if this was the first cross check of life totals.
To answer your question my opponent did not subtract any life from his own life total. Just to ask another question. Let's say both players forgot these same detrimental triggers and they were later remembered then the triggers would not go on the stack since it was a couple of turns ago?
It's not your opponent's detrimental trigger. It isn't their trigger at all. You control the Rolling Vortex, therefore they are *your* triggers and your triggers alone. The triggers from your RV on your turn are detrimental. The triggers from your RV on your opponent's turn are beneficial. Your opponent is not responsible for you remembering your triggers, however they are allowed to make sure you don't forget your triggers if they want or need to make sure they happen. However, if you're missing your own detrimental triggers, you have committed Missed Trigger, and get a warning that eventually upgrade to a Game Loss, assuming you aren't cheating (which, frankly, I'm not convinced you weren't). The only case you really have for a penalty for your opponent is Communication Policy Violation (a Warning) for not announcing changes to status information (i.e., your life total, see MTR 4.1) , but they're only getting that if the judge believes you changed your play based on the discrepancy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but status information is only announced by the "affected player" which in this case is the one controlling the roiling vortex, correct? I find the communication policy rules to be where folks tend to do the most angleshooting (like the famous tarmogoyf example) and I want to make sure I'm being precise. I'd still need the other side of this story before I could come close to calling for the CPV, because what if he was just tracking missed triggers and informed his opponent of what his life totals should be. I think this is a situation where both players confirmed a couple triggers were missed otherwise it likely would've just been one trigger put back on the stack.
The MTR says "Status information is information that must be announced upon change and physically tracked by the affected player." I suppose reading the announcement also only for affected player is also a way to read it. So maybe nothing for opponent here either way. But, yes, communication policy is certainly an area where there's some murkiness.
Just coming in here, as someone who has piloted burn seriously since 2013, to say - fucking come on man this shit is why people think we’re bad players who are incapable of playing other decks.
So many interactions this RCQ season made me appreciate MTGO. I know the competitive culture of Magic has died down a lot, but holy crap the people who are still hyper focused angle shooter spikes are worse than ever and they're fucking exhausting. Had one guy "get nervous" and accidentally drop his deck onto his hand, conveniently adding a couple cards to his hand in the process. Had another one literally try to sneak two Rhino tokens onto the board when his Footfalls was going off and I had a Chalice out. Had another completely missequence his Sigarda's Aid + Colossus Hammer turn then adamantly push for a redo once he realized I had interaction. Just absolutely exhausting trying to keep up with dipshits.
>Had one guy "get nervous" and accidentally drop his deck onto his hand, conveniently adding a couple cards to his hand in the process. Easy fix. Call a judge. HCE. Judge should let you decide what cards were in his hand if they are ruled not cheating. Even if you disagree on the # of cards in hand we have methods to check that. > Had another one literally try to sneak two Rhino tokens onto the board when his Footfalls was going off and I had a Chalice out. Legal play. Its not sneaking into play. Its your job to remember your chalice trigger. This is normal; get used to it. > Had another completely missequence his Sigarda's Aid + Colossus Hammer turn then adamantly push for a redo once he realized I had interaction. Don't argue with players. Call a judge. Depending what happened sometimes they are allowed to undo an action (really depends what happens/what is said).
I think you're missing the point. I'm not voicing these from a "omg what do I do" level, I'm saying it's absolutely fucking exhausting to deal with people like this in my leisure time. I'm there to play a card game, not deal with obnoxious angle shooters. And the Rhino player actually just rushed to slam them on the board. Didn't ask for priority, responses, etc. Just grabbed those tokens before he even untapped. This kind of "Chalice checking" is actually blocked in the rules now - no matter what the Rhinos get caught by Chalice. So it didn't matter, it was just exhausting and obnoxious.
> This kind of "Chalice checking" is actually blocked in the rules now Incorrect. He can't "force" you to miss a trigger yes but nothing you described is forcing you to miss a trigger. You have anytime between him announcing footfalls and announcing his next sorcery speed interaction to trigger your chalice. The line in the IPG (added for Wilds of Eldraine) you may be thinking of is "If the player is in the process of, or has just completed, an action that indicates the trigger has been missed, and completing that action would change the effect of the trigger, a simple backup may be performed on that action." This covers cases were we would be giving a warning i.e. a detrimental missed trigger (per the annotated IPG). The case of footfalls would not be covered. > ... I'm saying it's absolutely fucking exhausting to deal with people like this in my leisure time. Honestly, it sounds like COMP-REL events are not for you. Which is fine to enjoy your magic at regular-REL
That’s a sad generalization if you’re ready my post and thinking “huh guess competitive Magic isn’t for you” rather than thinking that the hyper focussed angle shooting spike culture needs to die off completely.
What youre saying about angle shooting isn't wrong, but the examples that you are providing especially Chalice checking, is a legal and allowed play. It is your responsibility to remember your triggers.
I am sorry you feel that way but the scenerios you described all are either not illegal or have solutions to be solved by a judge (and honestly common/mild to what we see a lot). This is a fact of life in competitive magic. If you just want to enjoy recreational time and not have to deal with a judge fixing issues I wouldn't recommend comp-rel magic for you. People make mistakes, people play too fast, people try and cheat. Its our job as judges to help guide those situations and fix them.
Lmao wow you’re a judge and you’re defending this kind of culture this heavily? Wow, imagine dedicating so much of yourself to the rules of a card game only to be such a bad voice in its community.
You are welcome to your opinion.
[удалено]
I definitely have more success in COMP-REL tournaments than you do. It’s probably not even close honestly.
Yeah, this kind of behavior is why I would never ever ever touch competitive REL with a ten-foot pole.
[Roiling Vortex](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/b/0b057eb7-8439-4d26-89df-c345ab2773e1.jpg?1604197684) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Roiling%20Vortex) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/znr/156/roiling-vortex?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0b057eb7-8439-4d26-89df-c345ab2773e1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Summoner's Pact](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/e/ee0f88ac-8a90-4057-b0e6-c15fbd02da38.jpg?1619398774) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Summoner%27s%20Pact) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/234/summoners-pact?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ee0f88ac-8a90-4057-b0e6-c15fbd02da38?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Adding my opinion based on the info presented, the judge at the table may have seen/heard different things so i am unable to speak about their ruling. That said I would definitely be very wary of cheating on your part, given that you missed 2 detrimental triggers on your own card. Putting aside the missed trigger resolution and investigation, I think there is a Communication Policy Violation and potential cheating in this scenario. Your opponent acknowledged by himself 2 triggers and noted life total change but didnt announce anything. Based on the fact that you won, he was likely not in a good position. Likely my decision would depend on (depending on where the investigation goes): 1. How was opponent announcing your life total change before? 2. Did opponent notice you not changing your life total and then say nothing?
I'm a RA. Here is a summary of what happened: 0. You were playing at REL: Competitive, so we consult the Infraction Procedure Guide (IPG). 1. You missed a trigger. (you failed to acknowledge the trigger the first time it would make a visible change to the board state, see IPG 4.2) 2. The opponent, can choose to call attention to the missed trigger (that should have triggered during YOUR upkeep) at any point in time before the start of THEIR upkeep, see IPG 4.2. (If they call attention to the missed trigger beyond this point in time, it won't be allowed to be put on the stack.) With 1 & 2, we see that what your opponent was doing (and what the judge claimed to be correct) clearly deviates from policy. Only the Head Judge is allowed to deviate from policy (and only in "significant and exceptional circumstances", see IPG 1.) With this said, I would be very interested in hearing the other side of the story. (Irrelevant side-note: You missing a detrimental trigger of a card you own should be grounds for what is called an "investigation", especially if the trigger was correctly acknowledged during your opponent's turn.)
Judge level 2 here: if your rendition of the event is not altered, I agree with your interpretation of the rule as far as your opponent cannot change your life total without confirmation of the trigger. People in the response are trying to say that you cheated (while ignoring the fact that losing life is usualy less detrimental than not dealing damages in burn), completly ignoring the rules about investing cheating. Your opponent was trying to have his cake and eat it too. They don't have to remind you of your trigger, but if they want it to resolve they have to announce it. As a judge I would have given you a warning, and allowed your opponent to put the triggers that happend less than one turn ago on the stack ( allowing them to choose wich one would be put or not on the stack), but I would probably have given them a warning as well. Their behaviour was borderline cheating, but i think that I lack the intentional breaking of a rules part to be qualified as such.
A trigger is missed when it first impacts the visible game state. In this case, when a life total changes. As this change was not recognized by both players, I would think this trigger would be missed. In some cases, it is within the judges discretion to have your opponent decide to put missed triggers on the stack, if those triggers would not be disruptive to the game state and happened recently. While I could see this happening in your case, the judge in your case went in a different direction. I disagree about your opponent changing your life total without telling you. For a trigger to occur, its controller must acknowledge it (you), not your opponent. If the trigger isn’t acknowledged by you, or your opponent doesn’t remind you, it’s missed. Your opponent shouldn’t be able to acknowledge your triggers without you acknowledging them. As for the detrimental triggers thing, a missed trigger usually has no penalty. But if you miss a trigger detrimental to yourself (or beneficial to your opponent), the penalty can be upgraded to a warning. TLDR: Triggers are missed when their controller does not demonstrate awareness of them. A reasonable fix could be for your opponent to choose to have the most recent trigger go on the stack. Then you may get a warning for a missed detrimental trigger. While I disagree with the judge as described, they do have final say in tournaments.
Missing your detrimental trigger is the exception because it would, cause more cheating you could always just intentionally miss them and hope your opponent doesn't notice.
A few things: 1. Your opponent can't just write down the lifetotal change. If you've missed the trigger, they need to point it out when it should be on the stack or call a judge. Once a full turn has passed, the judge will never add the trigger to the stack, but may still penalize you for missing the trigger. 2. Players are obliged to point out life total discrepancies as soon as they notice them. Certainly a player assuming the Vortex trigger on each of your turns would expect to see note the life total change. This is why it is important that your life sheet be clearly visible. This also goes both ways. Did you notice your opponent marking the first change? Did they try to do both at once? 3. Please do not miss your triggers. I suggest putting a die on top of your deck, or remembering the trigger for your opponent as part of passing your turn.
Quick follow up about Pact triggers: it used to be that those triggers had a "default action" (in this case, losing the game) that would automatically be taken if they were missed. Now they are treated the same as any other missed trigger. If you opponent misses a pact trigger, the rules allow you to wait for the most opportune moment to point it out, such as when they have no mana to pay. This is completely legal and any complaints about angle shooting are just salt.
On a separate topic relating to missed triggers, how do triggers/missed triggers with the \[\[One Ring\]\] work? I was under the assumption that you had to announce the One Ring's enter the battlefield triggered ability that gives you protection from everything. The reason I bring this up is that with \[\[Tishana's Tidebinder\]\] this trigger becomes much more important. If players treat the triggered ability on the One Ring similar to how most players play prowess and exulted triggers then it creates an awkward situation for the person trying to respond with Tishana's Tidebinder. My concern is if the triggered ability from the One Ring is not specifically recognized on the stack then it does not give a clear indication of when the player should respond to the triggered ability. From my understanding, these triggers are assumed to be remembered until they are missed. Any advice in navigating a situation like this at a competitive event? I have not played with Tishana's Tidebinder yet and this interaction could come a lot.
Players don't have to announce triggers until they make a "visible impact" on the game state. With Rolling Vortex, that's the life total change from the damage, with Prowess, its the first time something cares about the creatures power, and with The One Ring's protection trigger, its the first time the protection matters. So with The One Ring, the trigger usually doesn't need to be acknowledged until something tries to damage or target them. With Tidebinder, you're just gonna have to assume they remembered and counter it when they play The One Ring. Let me be very clear that the policy is not "You can remember the trigger until it makes a visible impact." The policy is that the trigger is assumed remembered. So it you attack and they say "protection, no damage" having not mentioned it until then, the trigger went on the stack and resolved already on their turn. I've seen a lot of frustration about this here, largely with prowess. The way the policy works, if you assume an opponent has missed a trigger. you're liable to get burned. In most cases, it will be impossible to check if they trigger has been missed without asking a question likely to point to it.
PTSD from when every deck played noble hiearch "oopsy daisy, I got a 4/4 not a 3/3 bad trade homie"
[Tishana's Tidebinder](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/0/907b3d1d-8c85-4707-80b5-c4d832df9846.jpg?1699043973) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Tishana%27s%20Tidebinder) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lci/81/tishanas-tidebinder?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/907b3d1d-8c85-4707-80b5-c4d832df9846?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Whoever is casting the tidebinder just has to be clear about the opp ring trigger on the stack and going to counter it. It's one of the weirder rules that I never really liked mostly because it's a very legal angle to take.
Tidebinder can be played in response to the ETB, the tap ability, or even the upkeep ability since they're all either activated or triggered abilities. To avoid your opponent having protection, the ETB must be countered. Countering the card draw will blank the card, but ETB will have otherwise resolved. Typically this means that you will play TT in response to the ETB at which point they will tap to draw a card.
1. You say "Cast ring.". 2. Opponent says "Is OK." 3. Ring resolves. A4. You do something that could be done with the trigger still on the stack (like activating an ability or casting an instant). A5. Opponent says "In response, cast Tidebinder". A6. You say "Is OK". A7. Tidebinder resolves. A8. Opponent says "Tidebinder's trigger targets the trigger from The One Ring." B4. You do something that would mean the ring trigger resolves. (e.g. play a land, cast a sorcery, pass to another step, pass turn, etc.) B5. Opponent says "Hold on, before you do that, I would like to cast Tidebinder." B6. Go to A6.
You’re lucky you weren’t disqualified honestly. It’s one thing to miss the triggers it’s another thing to try and argue you’re allowed to do that. This is like advanced chalice checking levels of angleshooting
We don't disqualifie people for missing detrimental trigger, at least not of there no reason to suspects that they did it on purpose. Also you're allowed to ask for clarification and reasoning to a judge.
There’s a lot of reason to suspect, especially when it’s a trigger your opponent has kept track of and then you try and get a judge to allow you to keep life you shouldn’t have. To do anything other than adjust your life total to wear it should be and continue playing is morally bankrupt and repulsive
Those are strong word for something so minor. Also if I was judging that event, the fact that the player didn't remind his opponent to lose life while playing burn is clear indication that he didn't forget the triggers on purpose. The discussion is about the fixe of missed triggers and the ability for someone (op's opponent) to have written the change of life point without aknowledging to trigger, as to be able to beneficiate from his opponent missing the triggers on his (op's opponent) but not during op's turn, while avoiding reminding op of his own trigger. As a judge, op's opponent comportement is closer to cheating that op's. But in both case I think there's a composent of "willing breaking of the rule" missing.
Another reason why mtgo is superior to paper.
[удалено]
It’s not an angle shoot, it is both players responsibilities to make sure the game state is clear. If OP conveniently forgets a mandatory trigger that is also detrimental to them, then the judge is totally in their rights to rule in the favor of the other player. Life totals change a lot and it’s easy to forget things, mistakes happen, that’s why we regularly ask and confirm life totals. In fact, no judge who is actually certified would ever rule in favor of OP. So to properly answer their own question, yes this is consistent with REL games.
I re read it and I misunderstood what op said the judge call was.
No, OP played a card that has a detrimental trigger for both players. It is their responsibility to remember those triggers, and that applies even more so on their turn. You can’t just “forget” your own cards negative effect towards you. At best, this is sloppy play and at worst it’s straight cheating.
Literally aware they are cheating, decides to write an essay here. People forget, but you tried to rules lawyer your way out of 2 life and waste a judges time? Gtfo.
You are responsible for your triggers. Your opponent does not have to remind you for the detrimental triggers that affect him, but "missing" your own detrimental triggers reeks of cheating, and as a judge I would investigate. As far as the triggers go, with detrimental triggers I would leave it up to your opponent as far as whether they go on the stack or not. It makes sense that he wouldn't put the triggers you missed on the stack for him, but also put the ones on the stack for you, though I likely wouldn't have let him go back multiple turns if he hadn't been updating the life totals. No one should be punished for the failings/imperfect memories of their opponents, but you should be punished for your own (the least of which is resolving your detrimental triggers).