Welcome to this month's Personal Tutor, where we'll discuss how to maximize our opportunities for player education. Our goal is to transcend the basic answer to create an informative answer that the players will really remember and teaches them something about policy, rather than just resolving this ruling. You may even find this process helps you improve your own understanding of the subject.

Here's this week's scenario:

Ashtabula and Norwood are playing in a Grand Prix Trial, and you see some argument at the table. When you arrive to investigate, Norwood tells you, “He and I just had creatures trade in combat, so his Bridge from Below triggered. He says he wants to get zombies before exiling it, but can't describe exactly how he wants to stack the triggers, so he doesn't get to do that, right?”

The basic answer:

Ashtabula can get zombies.

Please provide your response as you would replying to the players - imagine that we're going to read them your post verbatim. As you answer, consider whether you feel that Ashtabula is describing a legal sequence of plays, and what Norwood is really asking with his question.

L1s and Judge Candidates, feel free to give your answers immediately. L2s, please wait a day to add your input. L3+, please wait two days.

I would probably explain to Norwood something along the lines of:
“In Magic that a lot of the outcomes of actions are driven by intention rather than by technical prowess (pun intended). If a player can correctly vocalize what their intention is, if it is legal, then that will happen. If Ashtabula said that they want to get zombies before bridges get exiled that is what happens.”

I would then turn to Ashtabula and tell her that if she wants to get more information about how stacking triggers works then she can speak to me after the match.

It seems to me that Ashtabula is unclear of how the stack works. In addition to Elliot's answer, I would briefly explain the LIFO (last in, first out) method at the table. This is easy to explain and understand for most magic players. Then I would extend the invitation to explain the stack more detailed (with physical cards instead of invisible triggers) after their match.

Hey, Mark (and subsequent answerers): just a reminder to provide you answer as through you're talking to the players. Don't tell us what you'd do, do it!

My mistake and here is my conversation:

“Ashtabula is making clear what her intention is with the Bridge From Below triggers, therefore she will end up with the tokens. Ashtabula, the stack works according to the LIFO system. That means that the last object put on the stack will resolve first going all the way down to the first object put on the stack. I can explain this to you more graphical after your match, if you like. If there are no more questions, you can carry on with your game.”

I probably wouldn't produce something quite this precise on the fly, but I would hope that my answer was something like:

to Norwood: “Alright. If a player can clearly articulate what they want to happen after a batch of triggers resolves, we can go ahead and resolve them as if they are ordered in a way that accomplishes what they would like. We do not want Magic to be a game of ”gotcha“. With players watching their opponents for any deviation from technically correct play, in order to gain an advantage.”

to Ashtabula: “That said: if you have two simultaneous triggers, you choose which one goes on the stack first (I'd place one of my hands on the table), and which goes on second (place my other hand over the first). Then the second one resolves (remove my top hand), followed by the first (raise my hand from the table).”

Okay? Okay.

to both:

“If you'd like to talk more about any of this just come find me after this match.”

Let's post the solution to this month's scenario:

As folks noticed, we don't expect players to be able to articulate the rules plumbing behind the game in order to play it. While players can find it advantageous to have superior rules knowledge, and we want to encourage that, we also don't want players to feel like they need to read and retain the entire 209-page comp rules in order to enjoy the game. As long as a player can describe a legal result for his or her actions, it's generally fine to allow it.

Here's our answer:

“My understanding is that Ashtabula wants his ‘get zombies’ trigger to resolve before his ‘exile bridge’ trigger. It sounds to me like he's pretty clearly articulated how he wants to stack them, and since they're both his triggers, he can stack them to resolve however he wants. Technically, you're putting the exile trigger on the stack first, then the zombie trigger, and resolving them in the opposite order, but we don't expect you to spell all that out - you described how you want them to resolve, and that's enough.”

What we're doing here is both explaining (briefly!) how it technically works, but also making the larger point about required rules knowledge - he's explained where he wants to end up and roughly how to get there, so we're satisfied that he knows how Bridge triggers work. This is different from a player who says, "I want to do the Oblivion Ring trick" without being able to say how - we do expect you to provide some specifics on your actions.

That's it for this month - we'll be back in the beginning of March with another set of players who need your help! If you would like to submit a scenario or topic for Personal Tutor or become a member of the project team, please email Josh Feingold via the forum.

Edited John Brian McCarthy (Feb. 23, 2015 09:04:42 AM)