Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

I simply cannot get past the point in MTR where it says, in plain black and white, that a missed trigger should never be considered OOOS

I'm staring at the MTR and I cannot see where it says that. Please point to a sentence.

I did a search for the word trigger in the entire document, and the only place it occurs in the context of OOOS is in the actual definition of OOOS, as an example where a player performs a trigger at the wrong time.

It's possible that we'll lighten up the language on triggers, but by this definition of black and white, nothing should be considered OOOS. That's the point - OOOS says “other stuff is rules. Here's how you should bend them to make Magic playable”.

As to specific reports, be very careful of simply taking one player's word on what happened in a situation. At best, it's carefully phrased to portray them in a good light. In the Champion case, it was a slam-dunk super-obvious case of OOOS - his opponent played a borderland ranger, searched for a land, dropped it into play rather than revealing and putting it into his hand (nice of him, since there was overhead video), then ticked up his Champion. Technically too late, but… seriously?

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

Lyle Waldman
I simply cannot get past the point in MTR where it says, in plain black and white, that a missed trigger should never be considered OOOS

I'm staring at the MTR and I cannot see where it says that. Please point to a sentence.

Check the OP. Actually, here, I'll quote it for you. MTR, v.10/12, Section 4.3, p.22, par. 4:

Nor may players use out-of-order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time.

As to specific reports, be very careful of simply taking one player's word on what happened in a situation. At best, it's carefully phrased to portray them in a good light. In the Champion case, it was a slam-dunk super-obvious case of OOOS - his opponent played a borderland ranger, searched for a land, dropped it into play rather than revealing and putting it into his hand (nice of him, since there was overhead video), then ticked up his Champion. Technically too late, but… seriously?

If we take the words of MTR to be the Magic Tournament Rules (and, by, well, by definition, I suppose we should do that, I guess…is there a way to defend a tautology?), then yes, seriously. If you want not “seriously”, MTR should say so.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Nor may players use out-of-order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time.

I think you are misunderstanding the word “missed”. It's using the “forgot” definition.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Nor may players use out-of-order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time.

I feel that having a trigger resolve is a separate thing from taking an action.

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

Lyle Waldman
Nor may players use out-of-order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time.

I think you are misunderstanding the word “missed”. It's using the “forgot” definition.

Sure. So every time a trigger is missed (using the “didn't do it” definition), we have to stop the game, ask AP if they forgot the trigger, ask NAP if they believe that AP missed the trigger, ask NAP if the trigger should be put on the stack, and continue from there? That sounds like a lot of time wasted over the course of a tournament. Pretty sure there would have been quite the Twitter shitstorm if this is how the judges had resolved Todd's situation (it being on camera and all). I'm not saying that we should dictate MTR by Twitter reactions, but when Twitter starts going crazy with “judges are retarded” (and similar statements; I'm sure you know how Twitter can be), that doesn't put us in a good light. I'd prefer to have a standard, quick, easy-to-expedite fix.

As to the obvious followup question “why do we have to ask?”: Because how else can we know? We just assume the player remembered their triggers? Isn't that judges playing the game for players, which runs contrary to this whole trigger policy in the first place?

Alex Kümmling
I feel that having a trigger resolve is a separate thing from taking an action.

The way the word “action” is used in CompRules implies, to me at least, that it subsumes any change to the game state. Since we already have Toby here, what is the definition of an “action”? It doesn't appear in CR, as far as I can tell.

On Sat Dec 22 14:05, Brian Schenck wrote:
> Applying the policy on OOOS from the MTR isn't a deviation; it's a recognition of simply how players play. As James properly notes, this happens with something involving Harrow, where the player searches for the card after putting Harrow into the graveyard. It happens with drawing and then untapped; technically incorrect play, and should absolutely be a Game Rule Violation. It happens when a player follows the steps of casting a spell in the wrong order.

This is different to an issue with triggers. Resolving Harrow in the wrong order does not gain any information that would otherwise be available after the action which is out of order (specifically called out in the section on OOOS). Probing, seeing the opponent's hand and then drawing a card before triggering Ascension (an example given above) definitely does involve that. Drawing a card and then taking an action which technically occurs during the upkeep also does.

I have lost games in the past under previous trigger rules due to resolving multiple ‘land into play’ events before ticking up my Khalni Heart Expedition for the turn (it's a may, so at the time still missable). I accepted that I misplayed and moved on. Same here if you believe (for example) that Ascension triggers later than it actually does.

> Even more simply, it happens when a player draws for the turn and says “Go.” without doing anything. Technically, you should pass priority from the draw step to the end step about seven times, moving from draw step to precombat main phase, to beginning of combat, to declare attackers, to end of combat (since you skip the declare blockers and combat damage steps when no attackers are declared), to postcombat main phase, to end step.

This is not out of order sequencing, this is a tournament shortcut which is codified in the MTR. The OOOS that Lyle is asking about seems to be explicitly _not_ allowed per the MTR / IPG. This is what he (and I, and I'm sure others) would like some clarity on.

> That's why, again, the question at it's core is all about whether a trigger has actually been missed. Or, has it simply been performed at the wrong time?

But should we allow it to be performed at the wrong time? The OOOS rules give some guidance around this (gaining information, going back for things you missed at the proper time) which seem to be being applied quite loosely.

> I am not saying that the competing concerns are without merit. Again, as James notes, there will be time where the appropriate conclusion is that a player missed a trigger and there is no OOOS in a situation. But the important question to ask is the same one: Was the trigger really missed? Not just done at the wrong time, but did the player truly just botch the trigger entirely. That's where you have to investigate to assess the situations and where a very, very mechanical application of either rules or policy will fail you. That's why OOOS is important to the overall approach to judging: When we judge, we need to recognize that rule and policy enforcement isn't in absolutes of “correct” or “incorrect”, but rather there are situations where there is middle ground.

What I think many of us worry about here is a. the difficulty in assessing this (who isn't going to say ‘I always remembered it, clearly’) and b. the potential for abuse in getting information out of the opponent by being unclear in your communication. I'm all for clear communication, but when it's unclear I'd rather not benefit the player being unclear (whether it was deliberate or not)

Matt

Again, I hope my colleagues here will indulge me in a bit of philosophizing. My hope is to clarify the discussion without adding to the muddle. And, if I should fail, please accept my apology in advance.

I feel there are two major challenges we are facing in this discussion regarding out-of-order sequencing and missed triggers. The first is, in my opinion, easy, and so I shall mention it first. As some have already noted, players don't get it yet. Just as we, as judges, have a learning curve regarding the application of new policy, players do as well and find it even more difficult than we given their lesser resources. So, when a situation comes up that seems to go against the exact way a new rule or policy is perceived in the public, emotions will run high. And, we will get all of these Twitter comments or articles written to criticize the judging community. None of this is good, but it is also not terrible. It has happened in the past and will again in the future. I have personally been on the wrong end of some rather high-profile rulings in the past and have had to admit error or contribute to the change of policy. Right now, this is a time of some confusion and an opportunity for education. Because of the complexity of the short-lived lapsing triggers policy and the current policy, folks are going to be so focused on what is right and not right about it that there will be quite a bit of noise surrounding its applications. Over time, as a greater understanding and consistency become the norm, the noise will die down and most folks will forget that things were ever any other way.

One of the big contributors to the confusion right now is that we, as judges, are still learning the new policy as well. As I wrote earlier in this thread, I am one of those most guilty of applying the new missed trigger polity too strictly. When Toby wrote his article about out-of-order sequencing in applying to missed triggers, it was a light for me to clarify policy as a whole and it helped me greatly to step back from my focus on getting the new policy right and to see it in the context of how it fits with our larger tournament policy.

For me, there were three sticking points in my understanding and I will hope to speak to them a bit here in hopes of narrowing the discussion to a clearer focus and maybe to lead us to some good solutions moving forward for education and communication.

My first sticking point is the simple worry about getting new policy wrong. Because of this, it is natural for me to be more strict in my reading of it and turning most of my mental energies towards it whenever it would come up. So, at Competitive events, whenever a missed trigger scenario came up and I was called, I would immediately dredge up the text of the policy in my mind and start worrying about whether the trigger was truly missed, whether additional information was gained, whether the trigger is beneficial or not, whether it seemed there were any shenanigans, etc. Then, I had to worry about making sure that my solution was correct. Is there a warning? Is there a fix? Do I ask the opponent whether he or she wanted it to go on the stack still? For most of us, many game situations are just as complex if not more so, but we are so familiar with them, thinking about them takes very little bandwith. This allows us much more mental space to think clearly about larger issues and have more wisdom and flexibility with our rulings. When policy is new and we are so focused, it is more difficult to see the larger picture of the game and the event.

This then leads to my second sticking point. The first sentence in out-of-order sequencing reads: “Due to the complexity of accurately representing a game of Magic, it is acceptable for players to engage in a block of actions that, while technically in an incorrect order, arrive at a legal and clearly understood game state once they are complete.” The part of this sentence that I find challenging is how we interpret “a block of actions” in a game of Magic. Again, referring to the Harrow ruling, there was a time when the parsing of the resolution of a spell was very technical and judges and players with enough knowledge would apply jot and tittle of the rules to secure the outcome that once a card representing a spell is put into the graveyard, that was the end of resolution - full stop. These people were all correct. But, few people played normally that way and there was no reason whatsoever to apply the rules in such a way that suggested any potential damage to game play or tournament integrity. As such, we acknowledged that it is fully fair to let people resolves spells in a bit of an imprecise fashion as long as the natural flow of play and information gained did not violate our sense of fairness. But now, with the missed triggers rules, we find ourselves in a similar situation again. Combined with my first sticking point, we are now again, put into the position to reassess our view of this “block of actions” in light of what we want Magic play to look like and are worried about compromising integrity of play.

This leads us to the final sticking point and the one that really is the rub. This is sentence three in the section on out-of-order sequencing: “An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.” And this, I feel, is where we are having our most emotional reactions. In many of our examples, some information is clearly being gained prematurely. If we draw a card, that is obviously information. If our opponent discards a card, that is clearly information. If we enter combat and our opponent does not stop us and say that they wish to do something in the Beginning of Combat step, that is definitely information. So, depending on how high of a tolerance we have, it can be easy to be caught up in the phrase, “. . . prematurely gaining information.” After all, it is rare that something happening in a “block of actions” if done out of order does not cause a player to “prematurely gain information.”

But, in that very same sentence, we are given one more bit of wisdom that has been amazingly illuminating and freeing to me: “. . . which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.” Prematurely gained information does not always have to matter. In fact, most times, it really doesn't. I can't think of any card I could draw which would cause me to not want to tick up my Pyromancer Ascension. It's always good for me. And it is a may trigger so if it should ever not be good, I don't have to use it. There is no down side. As long as I did not forget, I always want to tick it up. Similarly, seeing what cards my opponent might have discarded in the resolution of a spell that should tick up the Ascension also would never have any reasonable affect on my decision whether or not to put a quest counter on the Ascension. Indeed, as long as I can demonstrate that I did not forget the trigger and am simply doing things out of order, there is not ever any time that it does not make sense that I would want to add that counter. (Now, given the complexity of the game and the amazing knowledge and creativity of those in our community, I am sure someone can come up with cases where this is not true. But I would submit that these are corner cases that are not likely to ever come up in real life.)

What really surprised me most recently is when I realized that the new trigger policy helped me understand better the out-of-order sequencing policy. After all, the new trigger policy has us making the judgment about whether a trigger is generally beneficial or not. We are instructed to not consider game state and make our judgment based on the trigger in as objective a case as possible. And, on the whole, this decision is a bit fuzzy for many of us. There are some triggers that I am still not sure about when people ask if it is generally beneficial. But, in the months since the policy came into being, I've grown more and more comfortable about my judgment as far as how I think the best judges in the world would rule and am, hopefully, contributing to the consistency of the L3+ community. As I worked my way through this aspect of the missed trigger policy, I was brought back to the phrase in out-of-order sequencing: “. . . could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.” As it turns out, many of the things that worried me most in my rulings did not really matter. While I was so focused on making sure that all of the details of the new policy were properly applied, I would lose sight of the issue of relevance.

So, this, I think, is where we are still learning and evolving. Out-of-order sequencing necessarily puts us in a position to have to decide whether or not any of the information gained in doing things out of order really matter or not. Toby talks about flow of the game. Others may use different language, but the core thinking is the same. When players play Magic, and a trigger happens and that player demonstrates in a reasonable, organic fashion that he or she was aware of the trigger but just did it in an incorrect, non-technical fashion, do we lower the hammer? For a time, I think we mostly did. And for a time yet, I think many players expect the same. But, I feel that as we get comfortable with the flow of play and a reasonable understanding of what matters and what does not, both players and judges will be as comfortable with triggers happening with slightly erroneous timing.

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

This is different to an issue with triggers. Resolving Harrow in the wrong order does not gain any information that would otherwise be available after the action which is out of order (specifically called out in the section on OOOS). Probing, seeing the opponent's hand and then drawing a card before triggering Ascension (an example given above) definitely does involve that. Drawing a card and then taking an action which technically occurs during the upkeep also does.

Okay, well, let's take a closer look at the following from the OOOS policy…

“An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.”

…and just consider what this means. What does it mean to prematurely gain information? And how do we assess that this information could reasonably affect a decision made later in the sequence of actions? And even more so, how does this apply to rather simple situation?

Let's go back to an earlier example I gave: Arcbound Ravager, Disciple of the Vault, and a sacrificed artifact. When you indicate no response, I say “My Ravager gets a +1/+1 counter and you lose 1 life.” Now, is this a missed trigger? Or does OOOS apply?

I would think that this should be a clear “block” of actions. My statement indicates I want both actions to take place. I'm just doing them in the wrong order. So, is the choice of you losing 1 life based on a previous action? No. Putting a +1/+1 counter on Arcbound Ravager is irrelevant to that choice, and the only information I gained was that you didn't have a response. But that shouldn't influence my choice for “may” either. You could destroy Arcbound Ravager and I'd still make the choice; destroying Disciple is moot as well. And policy should be clear that the only bit that would matter is the +1/+1 counter anyhow.

Let's take a slightly more complicated scenario. I control a Birthing Pod and Veteran Explorer. I sacrifice the Veteran Explorer to activate Pod. You indicate no response. I then go, "Alright, I'm going to search up Scavenging Ooze and get a Plains and Swamp." Again, my statement indicates I want both abilities and searches to take place. But, consider the wrinkles here about when choices would be made. Or even the responses you could have. And your responses could be based on what I search up. Especially since you get two basic lands as well as I. And that might let you cast Aven Mindcensor. But, did I miss the Veteran Explorer trigger, or just want to perform things at the wrong time?

The good thing to note about either situation being ruled OOOS is that the opponent can still request the player to perform the actions in the correct order. They don't just happen in the wrong order, and the opponent is locked out. Nope, the opponent can ask to have the player resolve things correctly and then take his or her own actions. Even more so, you can use some of that extra information about what I search up to make choices. You want to lock me out of an Ooze? Or perhaps do something else? Sure, that works. Put the Veteran Explorer trigger onto the stack and Sensei's Divining Top to see whether you want to search for that trigger at all.

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

I have lost games in the past under previous trigger rules due to resolving multiple 'land into play' events before ticking up my Khalni Heart Expedition for the turn (it's a may, so at the time still missable). I accepted that I misplayed and moved on. Same here if you believe (for example) that Ascension triggers later than it actually does.

That's true. Under various older policies, any of the following could have happened…

(1) You received a Game Loss for a “generally non-detrimental” trigger that you missed for the third time in an event.
(2) At one time, if you wrote Circle of Protection: Black on your decklist and were running Circle of Protection: Red, you were disqualified. Or, in slightly more recent history, you'd have to replace the CoP: Red with CoP: Black.
(3) At one point, missing your own Braids, Cabal Minion trigger was a Game Loss. It didn't matter if it was the first time you missed the trigger, you received a Game Loss.

…but some of these “outcomes” where when we had the Magic Penalty Guide. In fact, that would be an even bigger change to consider: When we changed the document's name from Magic Penalty Guide to Magic Infraction Procedure Guide. Consider just how much of a shift that changing the focus from “penalty” to “infraction” in the document's name can represent a real change in philosophy and what we consider when coming across situations involving errors that players make.

So, I understand how people have seen this work historically. This is a paradigm shift, and those can both be uncomfortable to some and more welcoming to others. But this is how policy gets changed: Situations come up where certain infractions/penalties lead to undesired outcomes. People recognize that while the ruling may be “correct” per policy, it doesn't seem to fit and we recognize when we can make policy better. Not just because it means we adopt solutions that fit a situation better, but also to recognize shifts in attitude from players, judges, and even WotC.

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

This is not out of order sequencing, this is a tournament shortcut which is codified in the MTR. The OOOS that Lyle is asking about seems to be explicitly _not_ allowed per the MTR / IPG. This is what he (and I, and I'm sure others) would like some clarity on.

First, MTR 4.3 doesn't explicitly disallow “resolving a trigger at the wrong time”. There is no specific line or statement in there that states anything close to that. Furthermore, there is a specific example involving a player resolving a trigger at the wrong time. Even MIPG 2.1 states “forgets to acknowledge the trigger or announce its effect” with nothing resembling, “resolving a trigger at the wrong time.” That language isn't present in either the Magic Tournament Rules or the Magic Infraction Procedure Guide. That's why, very early on, I stated that the core question to a missed trigger should always be: Has the player well and truly missed the trigger? Because nothing in policy actually states “resolving a trigger at the wrong time = missing a trigger”.

You can imply that, if you want to read either document in a very, very mechanical fashion. But that's an inference that it seems people are taking from the documents, but there is no explicit statement in either the MTR or MIPG to that end. That being said, I understand the inference people are taking and the implication that the documents seem to make. And I would agree that a revisit to the wording of MTR 4.3 could be helpful. Edit: I would very strongly encourage people to read Toby's blog posts and his responses to this thread, reflecting on what he has written. That's a huge amount of insight from the architect of both documents and into the policy itself. Don't overlook that at all just because it seems to not mesh with either document.

But, let's take a closer look at both MTR 4.2 and MTR 4.3: What is the purpose of OOOS? What is the purpose of tournament shortcuts? How do these things fit under a broader umbrella of philosophy on how players actually play the game, and where how this fits between the “functional” and the “technical”?

The idea of the shortcut policy is that players will take actions that would technically be incorrect in order to play more efficiently and skip over stuff that is largely irrelevant from a functional perspective. Does it really matter in most cases that the player just skipped X passes in priority? No, not really. We accept that as part of how people just play, and encourage it as much as possible.

The idea of the OOOS policy is that players will do things in the wrong order. Draw, untap? Sure, that's technically the wrong order. Is it really relevant though? I accomplished the normal things I should. But, without OOOS policy, this would actually be a Game Play Error–Game Rule Violation and I should be issued a Warning. For something that had no affect on game play, didn't result in an illegal game state, just me doing things that might feel natural as I can reach my deck first and the untap my permanents.

The point of both policies, as they evolved from watching players play at events, was to have things fit and make things easier for both judges and players. It is a focus on “functional” play versus “technical” play and seeing that a player will take some actions the wrong way. That Harrow situation? Technically, that could easily be Looking at Extra Cards or Hidden Information Violation without OOOS. Forget the “gotcha”, you clearly failed your search and are now looking at your deck illegally.

How comfortable does that outcome feel?

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

But should we allow it to be performed at the wrong time? The OOOS rules give some guidance around this (gaining information, going back for things you missed at the proper time) which seem to be being applied quite loosely.

That is something you may have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. A “de facto” ruling for every situation won't work, and that is why you as a judge will have to exercise judgment in the application of OOOS when it comes to a situation where you may consider a trigger to be missed or not. But don't automatically equate “missing a trigger” with “performing a trigger at the wrong time”. That's an implication that should not be gathered from either document.

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

What I think many of us worry about here is a. the difficulty in assessing this (who isn't going to say 'I always remembered it, clearly') and b. the potential for abuse in getting information out of the opponent by being unclear in your communication. I'm all for clear communication, but when it's unclear I'd rather not benefit the player being unclear (whether it was deliberate or not)

I agree, and why I think that James comments are very, very helpful to understand how and why OOOS should apply to situations and why you need to take a step back when judging and not approach a situation as being “It says X in the MIPG, therefore I'll do Y.” Especially as both MTR 4.2 and MTR 4.3 evolved from the same general idea about how players actually play, recognizing that “technical” play isn't the same as “functional” play, and that while it is important that players play both clearly and responsibly, it doesn't have to be sterling.

Edited Brian Schenck (Dec. 23, 2012 03:53:25 PM)

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

On Sat Dec 22 14:05, Brian Schenck wrote:

Resolving Harrow in the wrong order does not gain any information that would otherwise be available after the action which is out of order (specifically called out in the section on OOOS). Probing, seeing the opponent's hand and then drawing a card before triggering Ascension (an example given above) definitely does involve that.

I'm genuinely curious. What information could you gain from the Probe that would make you change your mind on the Ascension trigger? There are certainly triggers for which this could be relevant, but I can't think of anything that isn't a crazy corner here. Giant Fan?

At some point, you head down rabbit-holes. Yes, you have to make a judgement call. If everything could be written in spreadsheet form to produce reasonable outcomes, I'm sure we'd provide it, but it's not, so we have to be judges.

OK, just because you asked for it (I do not expect it ever to happen in real life):

You are at 3 life and you have 1 counter on Ascension.
Your opponent has Scout's Warning, Hex Parasite and Fling in his hand and enough mana to play Parasite with flash, remove 2 counters and sacrifice it to Fling.

In this case, you can save your life by not putting counter on Ascension.
And if you know it before resolving the trigger, it can dramatically change the outcome of the game.

Originally posted by David Zalesky:

I do not expect it ever to happen in real life

You're probably right. Feel free to call me (or Toby) the very next time it does happen, in a sanctioned, Comp REL match. :D

To Brian and James (and less so to Toby and Scott): I'm less worried about how the rule is applied than how the player base perceives the rules as being applied. Again, going back to the Todd Anderson case, I believe Todd's reading of MTR 4.3 is how many players read MTR 4.3. Not only Todd, and not only of SCG, many articles have been written by high-profile players regarding the new trigger rules and all of them basically say the same thing Todd was saying (you can look up other references by LSV, Matt Sperling, and others on ChannelFireball, if you'd like more examples). If we write 4.3 as written, players interpret it as they do, and then we go and do things differently, it makes the player base very uncomfortable. Whether or not we believe we are applying the rules correctly, the player base does not, and it makes them uncomfortable. As judges, it should make us uncomfortable that the player base is uncomfortable. I would highly encourage a revisit and rewrite of 4.3, if we intend to allow OOOS in conjunction with the new trigger rules.

To Toby: Your response to Matthew's comment sounds an awful lot like asking judges to interpret the game state, which I learned in my training is something we're explicitly forbidden from doing as judges. How is adding a trigger to Pyro Ascension any different from, for example, attacking into an empty board? Should we rewind the game state if a player goes to second main, then realizes “oops I could have attacked into an empty board” and wants to go back to combat? How is that situation different from adding a counter to Pyromancer Ascension? The mere fact that David was able to point you to a case (an edge case, a very strange edge case, nonetheless, but nevertheless a case) where you would not want to add a counter to Pyro Ascension in that case should be reason enough to not allow it under OOOS.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Not only Todd, and not only of SCG, many articles have been written by high-profile players regarding the new trigger rules and all of them basically say the same thing Todd was saying (you can look up other references by LSV, Matt Sperling, and others on ChannelFireball, if you'd like more examples). If we write 4.3 as written, players interpret it as they do, and then we go and do things differently, it makes the player base very uncomfortable.

Note that many of them say the same thing because they're reading each other's work. If one of them makes an error (as has happened a couple times) you can watch that error propagate around.

The player base is uncomfortable because change is uncomfortable and they're trying to internalize the new details. That's always challenging. It's also not universally popular, like all change.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

To Toby: Your response to Matthew's comment sounds an awful lot like asking judges to interpret the game state, which I learned in my training is something we're explicitly forbidden from doing as judges.

I'm afraid someone has led you astray. How would you ever investigate anything? How would you ever know if a backup was feasible?

There are some situations and policies where we say not to take game state into account, and there are times it's unnecessary, but not paying attention? Yikes.

What is a general rule is that we don't assume that players are making the strategically correct/optimal play, but that's a far cry from not looking at the game state to help explain what's going on. That would be giving a player who has genuinely missed their PA trigger the counter because “they obviously would make that play”. (which, ironically, brings us back to the Pyreheart Wolf ruling)

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

How is adding a trigger to Pyro Ascension any different from, for example, attacking into an empty board? Should we rewind the game state if a player goes to second main, then realizes “oops I could have attacked into an empty board” and wants to go back to combat? How is that situation different from adding a counter to Pyromancer Ascension?

I'm not following the logic here at all. Why are we rewinding? The only time OOOS involves a rewind is if the opponent says “hang on, I want to take an action you didn't know about during that block. We need to sequence this properly”. How does that apply to combat?

Also, if a player says “oops, I should have added a PA counter”, that's not OOOS.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

The mere fact that David was able to point you to a case (an edge case, a very strange edge case, nonetheless, but nevertheless a case) where you would not want to add a counter to Pyro Ascension in that case should be reason enough to not allow it under OOOS.

I can produce a similar edge case to make a mess out of every single piece of policy we have. You cannot make useful policy if you're going to worry about a tournament game with Scout's Warning, Hex Parasite and Fling. That's why they're corner cases and why we give judges some flexibility in extreme situations.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

To Toby: Your response to Matthew's comment sounds an awful lot like asking judges to interpret the game state, which I learned in my training is something we're explicitly forbidden from doing as judges.

I'm afraid someone has led you astray. How would you ever investigate anything? How would you ever know if a backup was feasible?

Direct quote from IPG, page 6, section 1.3:

These procedures do not, and should not, take into account the game being played, the current situation that the
game is in, or who will benefit strategically from the procedure associated with a penalty. While it is tempting to try
to “fix” game situations, the danger of missing a subtle detail or showing favoritism to a player (even
unintentionally) makes it a bad idea.

In particular, regarding the Pyro Ascension example, again a direct quote from IPG, page 8, section 2.1:

If the trigger specifies a default action associated with a choice made by the controller of the trigger (usually “If you don't …” or “… unless”), resolve the default action immediately without using the stack. If there are unresolved spells or abilities that are no longer legal as a result of this action, rewind the game to remove all such spells or abilities. Resulting triggers generated by the action still trigger and resolve as normal.

I'm not quite sure how you can spin these quotes to your advantage; it's right there in IPG. If you intend to make a declaration from the rules team about this, please adjust IPG to match.

There are some situations and policies where we say not to take game state into account, and there are times it's unnecessary, but not paying attention? Yikes.

When did I say “not paying attention”? I simply said that we should not try to interpret the game state. We can pay attention to the game state, but we should not try to interpret it, in terms of what's a good play and what's not a good play.

What is a general rule is that we don't assume that players are making the strategically correct/optimal play, but that's a far cry from not looking at the game state to help explain what's going on. That would be giving a player who has genuinely missed their PA trigger the counter because “they obviously would make that play”. (which, ironically, brings us back to the Pyreheart Wolf ruling)

To quote Matthew Johnson from earlier in this thread:

What I think many of us worry about here is a. the difficulty in assessing this (who isn't going to say ‘I always remembered it, clearly’)…

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

How is adding a trigger to Pyro Ascension any different from, for example, attacking into an empty board? Should we rewind the game state if a player goes to second main, then realizes “oops I could have attacked into an empty board” and wants to go back to combat? How is that situation different from adding a counter to Pyromancer Ascension?

I'm not following the logic here at all. Why are we rewinding? The only time OOOS involves a rewind is if the opponent says “hang on, I want to take an action you didn't know about during that block. We need to sequence this properly”. How does that apply to combat?

Your claim was that we should allow the OOOS because “why would a player not want to add the counter?”. David proposed a reason why a player might not want to add the counter (farfetched as it may be, it's a reason nonetheless). Hence there exists a reason why the counter might not be added. By assuming “the player will always add the counter, obviously”, we're therefore assuming the player will always make the optimal play in the case of Pyromancer Ascension.

My counterpoint was therefore based on the philosophy that judges should not enact rulings which are equivalent to playing the game for the player, in this case adding the counter to the Ascension when the point at which the counter should have been added was missed. The player missed their trigger, they missed the point at which their action should have occurred, and, as written in MTR/IPG:

remembering triggers that benefit you is a skill

(IPG, page 7, section 2.1)

Also, if a player says “oops, I should have added a PA counter”, that's not OOOS.

How do you figure? An action was taken out of order in the sequence. That's “out of order sequencing” if I've ever heard it.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

The mere fact that David was able to point you to a case (an edge case, a very strange edge case, nonetheless, but nevertheless a case) where you would not want to add a counter to Pyro Ascension in that case should be reason enough to not allow it under OOOS.

I can produce a similar edge case to make a mess out of every single piece of policy we have. You cannot make useful policy if you're going to worry about a tournament game with Scout's Warning, Hex Parasite and Fling. That's why they're corner cases and why we give judges some flexibility in extreme situations.

I'd like to hear some examples before I believe that assertion, if you don't mind providing. I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Direct quote from IPG, page 6, section 1.3:

Lyle, you are quoting out of context and applying a specific paragraph that is covering a specific thing to all aspects of the MTR and IPG. Section 1.3 is about applying penalties. Not determining if an infraction has occurred or whether Out-of-Order Sequencing can be applied. The paragraph about not taking into account the game state is specifically about the preceding paragraph, specifically about following the procedures to handle remedies beyond the base penalty. It's important to follow the prescribed procedures without taking into account the game being played and the situation it is in.

It is always important when reading the IPG/MTR to take each sentence and paragraph in it's context rather than in isolation. If a particular sentence is in the section about applying penalties then it should only be regarded when applying penalties.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

In particular, regarding the Pyro Ascension example, again a direct quote from IPG, page 8, section 2.1:

I'm not sure why you are quoting a section of the missed trigger additional remedy which relates to a default action. Pyromancer Ascension, there is no default action.

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Your claim was that we should allow the OOOS because “why would a player not want to add the counter?”.

I think you misread Toby's posting, he didn't say that we should allow the OoOS because a player would never not want to add the counter, he said that we never assume a player will always make the optimal choice because that would lead to a judge ruling that players would never not want to add the counter. A huge difference.

I'm now going to put my forum moderator hat on and suggest that this thread is starting to evolve into a “battle” of sorts. I really don't see a lot of reason for this thread to continue and it's quite close to being locked. So I ask anyone that is thinking of replying to this thread to ask the following question of themselves before posting - “Does what I am about to post advance the discussion? Does it add anything to the discussion that hasn't already been said?” If you cannot truthfully answer yes to both of these please do not post.