Yesterday night, during our regional monthly Judge-meeting, someone came up with an ‘interesting’ problem:

High Tide - a card played to a good extend in the Legacy format, creates a triggered ability whenever a player taps an Island for Mana. This card is symmetrical, but the controller of the trigger is always the player who played the High Tide (correct me here if I'm wrong, but we all agreed on that part).

From here on, I consider the player who played High Tide to be the active player A, and his opponent the non-active player N.
Furthermore, always consider this to happen on REL Competetive or Professional.
Also note that a High Tide trigger is VERY easy to miss for A if N taps an Island, since often, multiple High Tides can be active and players tend to tap and then untap Lands again while thinking through possible plays they can make.
We also agreed that it is counter-intuitive that you have to remind your opponent that he gets extra mana, since this kinda exactly is what the new trigger-rules were supposed to stop - being required to remind your opponent of stuff that is good for him.

This now creates two problems (or at least all of us agreed that those are problems):
1) the less severe one - since A controls, and therefor is responsible for, the High Tide trigger whenever his opponent taps an Island for Mana, N can possibly ‘float’ Mana over various steps if A fails to announce any of his High Tide triggers, since he can at any point in time (within that turn), when he needs the Mana (and maybe just them remembers that High Tide is symmetrical), call a Judge and have the ‘forgotten’ Triggers put on the Stack - and
2) the way more severe one - since A controls, and therefor is responsible for, the High Tide triggers whenever his opponent taps an Island for Mana, and because he is most likely very well aware of the fact that High Tide in fact is symmetrical (It would take a LOT of convincing done by a High Tide-Comboplayer to make me believe that he does not know that his Key-combocard is symmetrical, which is one of the Decks greater drawbacks in Legacy - trust me, about anyone entering a Competetive tournament with High Tide knows that it is symmetrical), the HJ basically would have to disqualify very close to every High Tide player as soon as he fails to announce a single trigger created by his opponents Islands, since (quote IPG, Cheating section):
'A player who intentionally forgets triggers he or she controls is guilty of Fraud'.

We found this to be a very harsh penalty for something so counter-intuitive (most people won't even realize that High Tide creates triggers that need to be announced, since they don't even use the Stack due to beeing a mana-ability, and even if they realize it is a trigger, many will just assume its their opponents trigger, since he taps the Island).
While I will make sure to publish this problem ASAP via forums, I still expect to have to Disqualify way more players that I'd be comfortable with for something this non-intuitive.


Is this conclusion that we came to correct, and, assuming it is, intended? Because this feels really wicked and exploitable to me, as player N can rather easily do a lot of stuff in which A fails to announce his Tide-Trigger and thereby ‘force’ a DQ on his opponent.

Scenario 1 is covered by “If the duration of the effect generated by the trigger has already expired”. The opponent never gets the option.

Scenario 2 looks to me to be unrelated to the trigger changes. What changed in the new rules that impacted this scenario? How would the old Missed Trigger rules have handled this differently?

I think the difference with Scenario 2 in regards to new vs. old trigger
policy is that under the old policy if the A player doesn't announce the
triggers, the NA player did not have the option of deliberately forgetting
his opponent's triggers in order to get him DQ'ed for missing his own
triggers on purpose. Also, the A player is now incentivized by many
similar scenarios to remain silent on his opponent's triggers if he
believes he does not control them, even though that is incorrect. I grant
that that last tenet may not result in a DQ but it's still a wrinkle that
the old Missed Trigger policy did not have that I feel is relevant here.

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

I think the difference with Scenario 2 in regards to new vs. old trigger
policy is that under the old policy if the A player doesn't announce the
triggers, the NA player did not have the option of deliberately forgetting
his opponent's triggers in order to get him DQ'ed for missing his own
triggers on purpose.

No, he had the option of pointing them out and getting his opponent DQ'd for missing the triggers on purpose.

The actual missing of triggers is structurally identical to the old way. What we then expect the opponent to do has changed, but that's not really relevant to a DQ scenario.

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

Also, the A player is now incentivized by many
similar scenarios to remain silent on his opponent's triggers if he
believes he does not control them, even though that is incorrect. I grant
that that last tenet may not result in a DQ but it's still a wrinkle that
the old Missed Trigger policy did not have that I feel is relevant here.

I think this may help provide guidance on how to proceed.

To put it another way: Just over a year ago, the described scenario should have been handled in the same manner. And yet, we managed to get by without DQing every High Tide player out there.

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

We also agreed that it is counter-intuitive that you have to remind your opponent that he gets extra mana, since this kinda exactly is what the new trigger-rules were supposed to stop - being required to remind your opponent of stuff that is good for him.

Well, I think that would be an incorrect assertion. From the Philosophy section of MIPG 2.1…

Triggered abilities are common and invisible, so players should not be harshly penalized when forgetting about one. Players are expected to remember their own triggers; intentionally ignoring one is considered Cheating — Fraud. However, remembering triggers that benefit you is a skill. Therefore, players are not required to point out missed triggers that they do not control, though they may do so if they wish.

…so this isn't strictly a “good/bad” aspect of the trigger, but rather about being clear about who is responsible for triggers. If it is your trigger, then you should be responsible for it. (The penalty aspect gets more into the nature of the trigger as generally detrimental to its controller or not.)

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

We found this to be a very harsh penalty for something so counter-intuitive (most people won't even realize that High Tide creates triggers that need to be announced, since they don't even use the Stack due to beeing a mana-ability, and even if they realize it is a trigger, many will just assume its their opponents trigger, since he taps the Island).
While I will make sure to publish this problem ASAP via forums, I still expect to have to Disqualify way more players that I'd be comfortable with for something this non-intuitive.

Well, I think that underlines a key aspect of Fraud itself. What, exactly, is Fraud?

Keep in mind that Fraud consists of two aspects: Intentionally and knowingly violating the rules or policy. That does require the player to understand the rules/policy to a certain extent. If a player doesn't realize precisely what High Tide does, then I'm not sure I would immediately jump to Fraud just because I know the Oracle text of the card when the player doesn't know. Sure, the player may have missed the effect of the card, but if he or she doesn't recognize that he or she controls the trigger, then I don't see the “knowingly” aspect of Fraud has been satisfied. (Much like a player might intentionally cast Path to Exile targeting his opponent's Knight of Infamy and forgetting that Knight of Infamy has protection from white. Do we think that everyone “knows” what Knight of Infamy does and should therefore presume an accident is impossible?)

Yes, this is a point where you might have to investigate to determine intent and knowledge, and apply some judgment in what you believe the player understood or didn't understand about the situation. Which means I would probably not presume that every player knows and understands exactly how the card works. Yes, they know it adds extra mana when an Island is tapped, but they might not understand the specifics. (Keep in mind that there is a difference between functional knowledge and technical knowledge when it comes to a game of Magic; players tend to focus on the functional, even when judges get into the technical aspects.)

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

Is this conclusion that we came to correct, and, assuming it is, intended?

Well, I think when you run across a situation like this, you need to investigate. This is true whether game play error or cheating; you have to assess the situation and determine what one player knows or understands about what is going on. And it requires some judgment to determine whether the situation is an accident or not.

As a High Tide player myself, I generally keep running totals of several things on dice. I keep a die running for how many High Tides have resolved this turn, a separate die (or 2 or 3) for how many blue mana I have floating, and another die (or 2) to keep track of my storm count. I think these could also be kept track of on paper, but the point is that as long as the High Tide player keeps such an explicit track of all 3 of those, there shouldn't be any triggers being missed.

Benjemin: I believe this article refers to the triggers from your opponents islands when they tap them for mana.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Keep in mind that Fraud consists of two aspects: Intentionally and knowingly violating the rules or policy. That does require the player to understand the rules/policy to a certain extent.

I'm really curious as to how much understanding the player can have before it is best practice to rule Fraud. It seems to me that without the rules knowledge (“I didn't know high tide gave my opponent mana too”/“I didn't know I was the controller of the ability triggered by my opponent's islands being tapped”) we can't possibly accuse the player of knowingly violating the rules.

And yet, a lack of policy knowledge, or an incorrect assumption (“I didn't think I had to announce triggered abilities that don't use the stack”/“I didn't think it mattered who controlled the trigger”) can lead players to intentionally violate rules because they think policy makes it ok. I wouldn't exactly call this Fraud either, but has the player crossed the line in these situations?

Edited James Back (Jan. 7, 2013 12:10:02 PM)

Originally posted by James Back:

I'm really curious as to how much understanding the player can have before it is best practice to rule Fraud. It seems to me that without the rules knowledge (“I didn't know high tide gave my opponent mana too”/“I didn't know I was the controller of the ability triggered by my opponent's islands being tapped”) we can't possibly accuse the player of knowingly violating the rules.

That is indeed part of the definition of Fraud. Unlike the other Unsporting Conduct and Cheating infractions where we do have to disqualify the player, Fraud requires that the player “know” the rules, or that you reasonably suspect the player “knew” the rules and violated them nonetheless. You may not even be able to “prove” what happened, but a reasonable suspicion and any evidence that supports the conclusion may cause you to determine that the seemingly simple and accidental rules violation was anything but that.

That's why it is critical to document all of that in your statement, as well as get the player to provide a statement. As while you may have to remove the player from the event in that situation, it may not be sufficient for any further disciplinary action. But, once you are reasonably certain that there was intent and knowledge by the player, it's Fraud. (Some judges will suggest “more than 50% belief”. YMMV.)

Originally posted by James Back:

And yet, a lack of policy knowledge, or an incorrect assumption (“I didn't think I had to announce triggered abilities that don't use the stack”/“I didn't think it mattered who controlled the trigger”) can lead players to intentionally violate rules because they think policy makes it ok. I wouldn't exactly call this Fraud either, but has the player crossed the line in these situations?

Again, it depends on the exact situation. For example, a player who bribes his or her opponent doesn't have to know the policy in order to violate it. Same with randomly determining a winner. That's why it can be critical to educate players to avoid these kind of behaviors entirely, or to call a judge if they have a question about whether they can legally do something. (For example, successfully negotiating a prize split and not having it be bribery.)