So how does Geist of Saint Traft work with the new trigger policy? Do you always have to place a physical token or are there still scenarios where you can shortcut the damage?

Edited Toby Hazes (April 8, 2015 04:02:37 PM)

I would say that if both players agree to not using a token (perhaps because they know N won't kill it and A won't do anything with it later), it's fine, especially since it's going to go away really soon anyways.

As long as both players agree on something I'd go with it.

I think this boils down to communication… we like it.

If they're basically shortcutting “I place a token, swing, and then pick it up”, and they understand that, then great. The game is well understood and moving smoothly. (And you're not likely to get a judge call)

If a player is trying to lure their opponent into forgetting that a token would show up, then it's not going to go well for the attacking player.

Seems this is my favorite quote, lately…

Originally posted by IPG 2.0, last paragraph:

If the players are playing in a way that is clear to both players, but might cause confusion to an external observer, judges are encouraged to request that the players make the situation clear, but not issue any penalty.

I'd be fine with AP saying “attack with Geist and the Angel token” or “attack, get an Angel” - something that's a fairly obvious attempt to communicate.

I certainly am not going to insist that they use a physical representation of the token, unless it appears that there could be confusion that would compromise the integrity of the game state. Yeah, that emphasis isn't quite the same as what the IPG says - but let's be realistic here. If both players know there's an Angel token attacking, and both players record the correct life total changes, or NAP blocks the Angel, or kills it, etc., then it really doesn't matter that an external observer never saw an Angel.

d:^D

I think the question is more about AP saying “Attack with Geist and Angel for 6”, then the NAP can ask, “Blocks?” or “Damage?” and then if AP says “yeah,” can the blocking player game the system and say, “Hey, he didn't perform the physical action! He doesn't get the angel!”

My answer to that question is “Nice try, NAP. Take your 6.”

Another thing to note with the new trigger policy, that it seems has been glossed over a lot in the discussion of actually taking a physical action, is this line:

Originally posted by IPG 2.1:

The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.

So while saying “Trigger” isn't enough to avoid missing these triggers anymore, if you say something like “Make a token” or “Put a +1/+1 counter on my guy,” that still qualifies as acknowledging the trigger in time, even if you don't immediately take the physical action that you described.

Edited Chuck Pierce (April 9, 2015 01:47:42 AM)

Originally posted by Chuck Pierce:

So while saying “Trigger” isn't enough to avoid missing these triggers anymore, if you say something like “Make a token” or “Put a +1/+1 counter on my guy,” that still qualifies as acknowledging the trigger in time, even if you don't immediately take the physical action that you described.

I don't think that's true from the way it's explained on Toby's blog: http://blogs.magicjudges.org/telliott/2015/03/23/dtk-policy-changes-for-judges/

when you acknowledge a trigger that requires physical action (gaining life, drawing cards, etc.), but then forget to take the action. A while later you remember and it’s a mess.

That seems to describe the scenario where you announce to put a counter on your guy and then forget until later.
So the way I read the rules is, but this could be wrong:

A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution: The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly
moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved. Note that casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been forgotten, as it could still be on the stack.

+

A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution: The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly
moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved. Note that casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been forgotten, as it could still be on the stack.

Edited Toby Hazes (April 10, 2015 02:51:19 AM)

My only issue with your parsing of the sentences is that you have “make it clear what the action taken” linked to triggers that require a choice, which has no mention at all of actions. The only part of the paragraph that talks about actions is the “The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the action taken…” piece.

Philosophically, it also seems like it's hard to argue that someone missed their trigger if they explicitly state the action that is going to happen but then get distracted or are playing quickly and don't do it right away. It also seems like when you make a clear statement like that it clues the opponent in to the board state and makes a GRV / FtMGS fit better if something goes awry. I'd love to hear from ‘O’ source who was involved with the policy change if that is the intention of that line or if it's more like your interpretation though.

Paralysis by Over-Analysis, part 313… (heh)

It's much simpler; please read it more like an activation cost & effect.
A triggered ability that … : The controller must do A or B (before progressing the game state)

d:^D

Uhm… so for example:
1. Anton casts Anafenza, Kin-Tree Spirit and then Ancient Carp and says “bolster on anafenza”, then forgets to put the counter on it. Then next turn when he wants to attack he notices. What happens?

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Uhm… so for example:
1. Anton casts Anafenza, Kin-Tree Spirit and then Ancient Carp and says “bolster on anafenza”, then forgets to put the counter on it. Then next turn when he wants to attack he notices. What happens?

That was actually the subject of a Knowledge Pool scenario a couple weeks ago: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/17088/

The solution was that since the choice was declared, the trigger isn't missed, so it's a GRV for not correctly resolving it.

Ah thanks, I missed that one =)

EDIT: actually, so let's take your original scenario ( if you say something like “Make a token” or “Put a +1/+1 counter on my guy,” that still qualifies as acknowledging the trigger in time).
Anton attacks with a Rakish Heir and says “gets a counter”, then next turn when he wants to attack notices he forgot to put the counter on there.

Edited Toby Hazes (April 10, 2015 06:39:25 AM)

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

so let's take your original scenario ( if you say something like “Make a token” or “Put a +1/+1 counter on my guy,” that still qualifies as acknowledging the trigger in time).
Anton attacks with a Rakish Heir and says “gets a counter”, then next turn when he wants to attack notices he forgot to put the counter on there.

Based on the IPG, Uncle Scott's clarification, and the KP Scenario, I'm pretty sure that would count as acknowledging the trigger, so it wouldn't be MT, but instead a GRV for not resolving it correctly. Since it's a turn later, I would probably not want to back up through 2 draw steps and several decision points, so I would leave the game state as is. This essentially works out to the same result as a Missed Trigger, but for a slightly different reason.

If that is also not MT, why would be KP solution be worded like this?

This scenario appears at first to be a perfect fit for the newest change to trigger policy

…

However, there's a very important detail to note about the bolster trigger: As it resolves, it requires a choice between creatures you control with the least toughness. By indicating her choice of Champion of Arashin before attacking, Anna satisfied the conditions for acknowledging the trigger.

And what then does this refer to:

At the moment, we have a list of trigger types and how/when they need to be acknowledged by, plus an extra caveat that says “or if they’ve been acknowledged before then.” That works fine for three of the four classes of triggers, but produces a strange result when you acknowledge a trigger that requires physical action (gaining life, drawing cards, etc.), but then forget to take the action. A while later you remember and it’s a mess.

Edited Toby Hazes (April 10, 2015 04:11:38 PM)

I believe that refers to the fact that before you could simply acknowledge the existence of the trigger and it wouldn't be considered missed, even if you never say anything about what the trigger is going to do. It used to create an awkward situation because just by saying “Triggers,” your opponent was partially responsible for making sure that you resolve your own triggers correctly, even though they might not be sure what action is needed or what your choice is going to be.

Now, you either have to actually do the action (which is straightforward), or describe what that action will be. This makes it much more clear that you are aware of the triggers, and it promotes communication with the opponent so that they know what is happening and that the trigger is resolving. If, after you say “This guy gets a +1/+1 counter” you forget to actually put that counter on, it's much easier for your opponent to point out that you didn't do the action, because you actually told them specifically what you are going to do.