We've all heard the phrase “the policy is for missed triggers, not forgotten triggers”. This means that a player may forget about their trigger when it should have triggered but not advance the game to a state where policy says the trigger has been missed. So although forgotten at the appropriate time, the trigger was not missed.

Now, do you think the phrase also applies to the other case: a trigger is remembered and pointed out, but because the controller thinks the card works differently, passes the point to consider it a missed trigger by policy without acknowledging it?
The example I heard is this: there is a Torpor Orb on the battlefield. Player A casts Emrakul and says “it's a shame, I won't get my extra turn because of the Orb” thinking that Emrakul's trigger is on EtB. Says go, player B untaps, draws, plays something and then they realize their mistake.

My opinion is that the player may be demonstrably aware of the trigger but if their actions fulfill the criteria for missed triggers, it is effectively missed.

What do you think?

This is a really good question. I believe that regardless of the reason the trigger was missed, its still a missed trigger. Players have a responsibility to understand their own cards.

However any scenario like this one warrants an investigation. If the opponent was aware of the mistake at the time of the comment and allowed it to happen that is definitely some foul play that we can not ignore.

-Ariel Adamson

That's an interesting question. I had a situation in a non-competitive tournament where a player announced the trigger of Abzan Beastmaster. His opponent responded by killing it, and the controller of Abzan Beastmaster thought that somehow the ability wouldn't happen anymore. We just added the ability to the stack, because it was FNM and noticed right away, but I wondered how I had to handle this on Competitive REL. A player demonstrates awareness of the triggered ability, but fails to resolve it because he thinks it doesn't happen anymore? This should be GPE-GRV, but I'm not sure.

But there's a slight difference to the situation as proposed by Federico, because in my situation the player actually adds the ability to the stack, whereas in the opening post the player fails to do so because he thought it wouldn't trigger at all.

Edited Jasper König (May 26, 2015 02:29:29 AM)

Originally posted by Federico Donner:

The example I heard is this: there is a Torpor Orb on the battlefield. Player A casts Emrakul and says “it's a shame, I won't get my extra turn because of the Orb” thinking that Emrakul's trigger is on EtB. Says go, player B untaps, draws, plays something and then they realize their mistake.

Misquoting a card's text sound very CPV to me, and that is the kind of infraction you can fix with a full backup :>

Originally posted by Federico Donner:

The example I heard is this: there is a Torpor Orb on the battlefield. Player A casts Emrakul and says “it's a shame, I won't get my extra turn because of the Orb” thinking that Emrakul's trigger is on EtB. Says go, player B untaps, draws, plays something and then they realize their mistake.

My opinion is that the player may be demonstrably aware of the trigger but if their actions fulfill the criteria for missed triggers, it is effectively missed.

I'd interpret “Missed Trigger” as missing when it triggers. In this case, the extra turn triggered on casting. They erroneously thought it would trigger on ETB, so they thought it was gone past the point it should have already triggered.

I think normally we would assume it resolved when it mattered (such as “Take my next turn”), but the player has clearly indicated that the trigger was missed.

Andrea Mondani
The example I heard is this: there is a Torpor Orb on the battlefield. Player A casts Emrakul and says “it's a shame, I won't get my extra turn because of the Orb” thinking that Emrakul's trigger is on EtB. Says go, player B untaps, draws, plays something and then they realize their mistake.

Misquoting a card's text sound very CPV to me, and that is the kind of infraction you can fix with a full backup :>

Who misquoted whose card? Where would you back up to?

Originally posted by Ariel Adamson:

If the opponent was aware of the mistake at the time of the comment and allowed it to happen that is definitely some foul play that we can not ignore.

I'm not sure I see foul play at all; it's just competitive and knowing the cards better. I see no penalty. If the player agreed and told them “yep, no trigger for you” *shifty eyes* then sure I think there is a reason to step in.

Originally posted by Andrea Mondani:

[Misquoting a card's text sound very CPV to me, and that is the kind of infraction you can fix with a full backup :>

In this example, player B drew a card and played a land for the turn. Do you think it would be disruptive to rewind through that? Does it depend on the board state?

Originally posted by Evan Cherry:

I'd interpret “Missed Trigger” as missing when it triggers. In this case, the extra turn triggered on casting. They erroneously thought it would trigger on ETB, so they thought it was gone past the point it should have already triggered.

I think normally we would assume it resolved when it mattered (such as “Take my next turn”), but the player has clearly indicated that the trigger was missed.

I'm not sure I agree here. Let's say that AP has a a Monastary Swiftspear out, and casts Brainstorm. After resolving the Brainstorm, he says, “Darn, I forgot about my Prowess trigger.” He then attacks, the opponent doesn't block, and he says, “Okay, take two.” It seems to me that saying that you forgot your trigger doesn't mean you missed it - until we hit a “demonstrate awareness” line specified by the IPG, you haven't missed it, even if you say something to the contrary.

Originally posted by John Brian McCarthy:

Evan Cherry
I'd interpret “Missed Trigger” as missing when it triggers. In this case, the extra turn triggered on casting. They erroneously thought it would trigger on ETB, so they thought it was gone past the point it should have already triggered.

I think normally we would assume it resolved when it mattered (such as “Take my next turn”), but the player has clearly indicated that the trigger was missed.

I'm not sure I agree here. Let's say that AP has a a Monastary Swiftspear out, and casts Brainstorm. After resolving the Brainstorm, he says, “Darn, I forgot about my Prowess trigger.” He then attacks, the opponent doesn't block, and he says, “Okay, take two.” It seems to me that saying that you forgot your trigger doesn't mean you missed it - until we hit a “demonstrate awareness” line specified by the IPG, you haven't missed it, even if you say something to the contrary.

Would they then warrent a CPV for lying about free information. As they have stated they missed a trigger which is free information since it is a game action that still effects the game state.

There's a difference between forgetting, missing, and mishandling a Trigger.

Generally, forgetting a trigger will lead to missing it - but (as others have noted) it is possible to remember in time.

Let's also remember that, with the current (most recent) wording, it is possible to remember your trigger as it triggers, then fail to demonstrate awareness at the time it has a visible effect. An example might be like this:
“Combat, Rabblemaster…” - then a bit of interaction where the opponent taps something, you counter, she counters, and finally you turn your creature(s) sideways to attack … and forget to actually put the Goblin token on the battlefield. You just missed your trigger.

Incorrectly handling a trigger - whether that's resolving it incorrectly, or misunderstanding the trigger itself - is a GRV. Allowing your opponent to commit a GRV that's to your benefit is not a good way to win the tournament (heh). In Federico's example, it sounds like both players goofed, so it's a GRV/FtMGS situation, and you decide whether or not a rewind is simple enough. In Jasper's example, it's quite similar - GRV/FtMGS if the opponent also thought the trigger went away (it doesn't, of course).

In John Brian's rather sneaky example, the player is bluffing that he's about to miss his trigger - but he doesn't. I'll admit, I don't much like that - but there are sneaky, less-than-sporting lines of play that I don't like but do allow…

d:^D

Originally posted by John Brian McCarthy:

I'm not sure I agree here. Let's say that AP has a a Monastary Swiftspear out, and casts Brainstorm. After resolving the Brainstorm, he says, “Darn, I forgot about my Prowess trigger.” He then attacks, the opponent doesn't block, and he says, “Okay, take two.” It seems to me that saying that you forgot your trigger doesn't mean you missed it - until we hit a “demonstrate awareness” line specified by the IPG, you haven't missed it, even if you say something to the contrary.

I can see your point/interpretation, and I'm basing my stance on the line from the Philosophy section of Missed Triggers:

“Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately apparent.”

IMO the point of the visible effect is in indicating that you remembered when it actually matters, without saying anything to the contrary. It allows absence of acknowledgment but you're still indicating that it was remembered when it mattered.

Saying “I forgot my trigger” clearly indicates that it was missed, and the opponent no longer has to assume that it was remembered. Intentionally misleading an opponent is questionable behavior. Are you ok with the situation you provide? At the worst it's lying, and at best it's intentionally misleading the opponent with active communication.

We issue CPV and can back games up to protect a player from decisions made based on faulty information provided by their opponent. I'd say that indicating a missed prowess trigger on a 1/2 so I block with my 2/2 and you say “HAHA he's really 2/3!” is a play line chosen on intentionally mislead information.

I may be hanging up on the line “indicated”, which may only strictly be referring to demonstrating awareness of the trigger, and not by “indicated” meaning to say one way or another whether it was remembered or missed.

Added to avoid 3rd post in a row:

Also John Brian, in your scenario, the player is fully aware of how the trigger works, says something contrary to being aware of it, and uses that information when it matters. May or may not be missed depending on interpretation of “indicated.”

In my answer to Frederico's case, the player misinterpreted whether it would trigger (it did with Torpor Orb in play), but missed it at the point when it mattered by passing the turn. Pretty sure it's missed either way.

Edited Evan Cherry (May 27, 2015 02:32:57 AM)

Originally posted by Evan Cherry:

Andrea Mondani

Federico Donner
The example I heard is this: there is a Torpor Orb on the battlefield. Player A casts Emrakul and says “it's a shame, I won't get my extra turn because of the Orb” thinking that Emrakul's trigger is on EtB. Says go, player B untaps, draws, plays something and then they realize their mistake.

Misquoting a card's text sound very CPV to me, and that is the kind of infraction you can fix with a full backup :>

Who misquoted whose card? Where would you back up to?

I wanted to be brief and ended up being unclear :/

When he says that the Orb is preventing his trigger to work he's misrepresenting the game rules (implicitly saying that the text is an etb trigger instead of a when cast trigger). As game rules are derived information, misrepresenting them is CPV.

I'd backup at trigger on the stack: the something played back in hand of B, random card on top, taps back whatever was tapped and Emrakul's trigger is on the stack.

Choosing the “trigger acknowledged but resolved incorrectly” way, so GRV, the end result would be similar on a full backup (the only difference is the trigger already resolved, A's turn ends and A's extra turn starts).

Unless we think we should not backup (see below).

Justin Purcell

Andrea Mondani
Misquoting a card's text sound very CPV to me, and that is the kind of infraction you can fix with a full backup :>

In this example, player B drew a card and played a land for the turn. Do you think it would be disruptive to rewind through that? Does it depend on the board state?

No, I don't, what do everyone here think?

Edited Andrea Mondani (May 27, 2015 07:42:52 PM)

Originally posted by Andrea Mondani:

When he says that the Orb is preventing his trigger to work he's misrepresenting the game rules (implicitly saying that the text is an etb trigger instead of a when cast trigger). As game rules are derived information, misrepresenting them is CPV.

There's a difference here between misrepresenting and misunderstanding derived information. You wouldn't issue a CPV to a player who Shocks a Harbor Bandit, says “kill your 2/2 guy”, and then feels sad because he didn't notice Watery Grave. In the original example Player A is misunderstanding derived information (game rules and Oracle text) and Player B isn't obligated to help him figure it out. Yes, there's a GPE as a result of the misunderstanding, but because the GPE being committed by Player A is ultimately a Missed Trigger, Player B also isn't obligated to either make note of it or even notice the error happened at all.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

In John Brian's rather sneaky example, the player is bluffing that he's about to miss his trigger - but he doesn't. I'll admit, I don't much like that - but there are sneaky, less-than-sporting lines of play that I don't like but do allow…

Evan Cherry
We issue CPV and can back games up to protect a player from decisions made based on faulty information provided by their opponent. I'd say that indicating a missed prowess trigger on a 1/2 so I block with my 2/2 and you say “HAHA he's really 2/3!” is a play line chosen on intentionally mislead information.

So, CPV but no missed trigger is the ‘o’fficial ruling for this situation?

Edited Hao Ye (May 29, 2015 01:55:53 AM)