I make some rules questions and my last one is regarding missed triggers. It goes like this:

“Anna has a Kragma Butcher (2/3, inspired: get +2/+0). She attacks Norma and passes the turn. Norma who did not have any creatures plays a Doorkeeper (0/4 wall) and a Bronze Sable (2/1 vanilla).

On Annas following turn, Kragma Butcher untaps. She then plays Barrage of Boulders (1 dmg in all opponents creatures. If you control a creature with power 4 or greater, creatures cannot block this turn) and Bronxe Sable dies.

Anna then attacks with Kragma Butcher. Norma blocks it with Doorkeeper. Anna thinks that Doorkeeper dies, but Norma disagrees. Who is right?”

A. Anna - Doorkeeper dies due to Butchers inspired trigger makes it 4/3
B. Norma - Butcher is 2/3 since the trigger is missed
C. Neither - This is an illegal board state


Alternative A is obviosly incorrect. If it is 4/3 then it cannot be blocked. But then it becomes trickier. When I wrote this, I thoght that alternative B was correct. It was based on this rules text:

Triggered abilities are considered to be forgotten by their controller once they have taken an action past the point where the triggered ability would have an observable impact on the game.

Barrage of boulders does not have an observable impact. Declaring blockers has. Thus, by allowing the block it is stated that the butcher indeed does not have 4 power.

This is very similar to the situations arosen by Daring Skyjek (3/1, batalion - Gains flying); You do not need to point out that it has flying until defending player tries to make an illegal block.

Question A: (read question B first)
Can attacking player wait until all blockers are declared before pointing out that he/she indeed has remembered the trigger? Or is this to be seen as fishing for information?


The thing that makes me doubt that this situation should be able to arrise is the following rules rext:

Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately apparent. The opponent’s benefit is in not having to point out triggered abilities, although this does not mean that they can cause triggers to be missed. If an opponent requires information about the precise timing of a triggered ability or needs details about a game object that may be affected by a resolved triggered ability, that player may need to acknowledge that ability’s existence before its controller does.

Question B:
Does this mean that defending player needs to ask if the trigger was remembered prior assigning blockers? This would of course nullify question A.

Edited Olle Liljefeldt (Feb. 5, 2015 07:14:18 AM)

To start with B: No. Player B has no obligations whatsoever to check whether triggers from player A resolved or not. Player B needs to do nothing.

Player A has to point out that the block by player B is illegal because “trigger”. It's best to do that as soon as possible (like, during untap…) but players either forget, try to gain an advantage, or play sloppy. The first moment player A is too late to mention it is, as soon as a game action is taken after the blockers are declared. So yes, he can wait until all blocks are made before pointing this out. However, since one block was illegal, all other blocks can be reconsidered by player B.

Note that neither player gets a warning for illegal blocks or anything, nor is there a warning for missed trigger.

The scenario is:
D Player A informs player B that the trigger actually did resolve, and that his blocks are illegal, because the effect of Barrage of Boulders. They can either re-declare blockers and play on. If (likely) a judge is called, no penalties are issued.

Regarding your Question A:

If I would be the attacking player I would wait until all blockers are declared and than inform him that this is in fact an illegal block. The reason I wait is because it could give me tactical information, but when it would take to long or against a newer player I immediately mention it the moment he would like to block the Kragma Butcher.

Regarding your Question B:

If I was the blocking player I have the right to try and block the Kragma Butcher with my Doorkeeper and if my opponent lets me block the Butcher, in the original scenario, that would mean it's considered a 2/3 at the moment and my Doorkeeper will survive with 3 damage marked on it. Simply trying to block the creature allows you to check if you're opponent is aware of the trigger or not and can be used to your advantage and it won't raise alarms that your opponent might have forgotten some trigger if you would ask him straight up.

Edited Niki Lin (Feb. 5, 2015 12:29:31 AM)

What makes this interesting is that it's not a Trigger that's missed, it's the second sentence on Barrage of Boulders.

Anna has demonstrated awareness of her trigger, but is forgetting that it means the Ferocious aspect of BoB will apply - so the block is illegal, and we back up to Declare Blockers. Which probably doesn't mean much, unless Norma is holding Curtain of Light or some similar trick.

I'd give Anna a GRV, for not resolving Barrage of Boulders correctly, but I'd be hesitant to give Norma any infraction, not even Failure to Maintain Game State, as her actions are legal if Anna Missed her Trigger - which completes the twist in this Mobius Strip of a scenario!

d:^D

Oh yes, I overlooked the part in the original message where a claim is made that one player thinks the Doorkeeper should die.

Than I follow the logic of Scott where we need to give Anna a GRV-warning and Norma is on the safe side as she could assume that a missed trigger was occurring.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

What makes this interesting is that it's not a Trigger that's missed, it's the second sentence on Barrage of Boulders.

Anna has demonstrated awareness of her trigger, but is forgetting that it means the Ferocious aspect of BoB will apply - so the block is illegal, and we back up to Declare Blockers. Which probably doesn't mean much, unless Norma is holding Curtain of Light or some similar trick.

I'd give Anna a GRV, for not resolving Barrage of Boulders correctly, but I'd be hesitant to give Norma any infraction, not even Failure to Maintain Game State, as her actions are legal if Anna Missed her Trigger - which completes the twist in this Mobius Strip of a scenario!

d:^D

Just so I understand you correctly: Anna is acknowloging a trigger after it should have had an observable effect of the game, but it is not a missed trigger? Because the observable effect is indirect? Note that Anna shows now awareness of the trigger prior combat damage step.


This is the rules text I think your ruling contradicts:

Triggered abilities are considered to be forgotten by their controller once they have taken an action past the point where the triggered ability would have an observable impact on the game.

The action taken: Allowing Doorkeeper to block.
The observable impact of the game: Barrage of Boulders would have prohibited the block.

The impact is already there, so I am a bit confused why this is ruled as not a missed trigger.

Edited Olle Liljefeldt (Feb. 5, 2015 06:30:34 AM)

The trigger is just +2/0, and the first observable impact is the damage being dealt by the creature, and Anna correctly notes that it's 4, not 2.

Allowing the block is not missing the trigger, it's forgetting the second part of Barrage of Boulders. That's a GRV.

d:^D

Sorry about being on two minds on this during this discussion but looking at it further in detail I think Olle makes a valid point.

I think we can say that the first observable point of the is the trigger is blocking in this case? The moment Anna lets her opponent block one could argue that this block can only happen because no creature with power 4 or greater was around at the resolve of Barrage of Boulders (and therefore the trigger must've been missed!).

Or would you disagree and tell me that this would be in the area of “gotcha magic”?

Edited Niki Lin (Feb. 5, 2015 05:00:39 PM)

You're right, Olle does raise a good point.

I think it's very clear that Anna forgot about the 2nd part of Barrage's text - but we don't know if it's because she missed (forgot) the trigger, then remembered it later, or if she forgot that Barrage did all that. In either case, allowing the block is not an indication that she forgot the +2/0, it's an indication that she forgot that the combination of the trigger and the Barrage means that creatures can't block.

To be fair, this is a really odd case, where a trigger affects what a later action does. I'm not saying corner-case, because Ferocious is a thing right now, but there's some uncertainty about the interaction of the trigger and the spell. That won't be resolved in this forum; it's probably a discussion for some/all of the L4s, and/or rules gurus, and/or R&D.

As much as I hate to resort to “you had to be there”, I think it's valuable in this scenario. Simply asking Anna “why did you allow Norma to block?” might solve this rather neatly. If she admits that she forgot the +2/0 when she cast Barrage, then remembered when it was time to deal damage? Well, first you have to believe it was an innocent mistake, but if you do, then she missed her trigger. If she convinces you that she simply forgot that 2nd line of text on Barrage, then she didn't miss her trigger (but she does get a GRV).

d:^D

I have been trying to wrap my head around this for a couple of days now and I just cannot see what makes this a special case.

Scott wrote: “To be fair, this is a really odd case, where a trigger affects what a later action does.”

When is this not the case when it comes to missed triggers? To me that is the very definition of a missed trigger; If the later action taken does not acknowledge the triggers existence, the trigger is missed.


Example:
Adam has 4 Qasali Pridemage. He attacks Nathan with one of them and says “you take 5”.

The Exalted trigger affects the pridemates power; It does not affect how much damage is being dealt (the power is!).


In both the example above and the scenario with Barrage of Boulders, the creatures power is affecting another action later in the game. In one of the scenarios, the power is affecting how much damage is being dealt. In the other it affects how a spell affects the game.

But only one of them is clearly a missed trigger. The other is not. And I cannot understand what the difference is. Why does it matter HOW the power affects the game? What makes this an odd case?


By contrast, consider if a Savage Punch was played precombat. If the wall dies and Kragma Butcher attacks and says “you take 2” or “you take 4” that is clearly a GRV since these are impossible scenarios. And the wall dying in the fight is enough to indicate knowledge of the inspired trigger.


I just want to know what makes this case special. Because what I originally thought might be a problem clearly is not.

Edit/SM: corrected spelling on Qasali Pridemage…

Edited Scott Marshall (Feb. 10, 2015 12:42:18 AM)

There was recently a similar question asked on the Northwest judge forum but the question focused around a different aspect of this kind of problem.

If you were watching this situation unfold as a judge (rather than being called to the table), when would you step in and what would you ask?

There were – many split opinions.

Maybe this sentence isn't as clear as it could be; let's try a very small tweak:

To be fair, this is a really odd case, where a trigger affects what a later, unrelated action does.

In more detail: the Barrage of Boulders doesn't care about any triggers, it cares if you have Ferocious or not. Anna played the Barrage to kill the Bronze Sable, then ignored or forgot the second sentence on the Barrage.

As I mentioned, I never like to fall back on “you had to be there” - it's a horrible “solution” - but in this case, you really need to ask Anna “why did you allow that block?” Her answer will tell you if she forgot the trigger, then remembered it later, or if it's a GRV for a different kind of miss - she missed the second sentence on Barrage.

One important sentence that's being overlooked, in my post:

That won't be resolved in this forum; it's probably a discussion for some/all of the L4s, and/or rules gurus, and/or R&D.

And I'm not sure this will get a lot of attention, as we've got a fair number of other things to consider right now (OK, always).

d:^D

Remember that players aren't always that good at knowing how the stack works with triggers from casting spells.
We know that when the spell is cast, the trigger goes on the stack above the spell and will resolve first. It's quite feasible that the player may think that the spell effect checks before the trigger resolves, so as far as they're concerned, the block is allowed but the trigger still resolved.

The Kragma Butcher's trigger “resolved” during upkeep, and Barrage of Boulders is a sorcery - this can't possibly be stack confusion. I agree with Scott that there's not really a cut solution, and asking Anna why things transpired the way they did is ultimately the only way you're going to arrive at a fix.