Observed at a sealed tournament:

Adamaro controls a Whisperer of the Wilds and a Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest. He casts Cached Defenses, and bolsters onto Shu Yun. Then, he attacks. His opponent declares “no blocks,” and Adamaro says “take 7, 3 power plus three counters plus Prowess.”

Something went wrong, because Prowess should have triggered before Cached Defenses, meaning the Bolster counters should have gone onto the Whisperer. But I'm not clear what the infraction would be. This could be a GRV (resolving the stack in the wrong order and/or bolstering onto a creature that does not have the least toughness) or it could be a missed trigger (Bolster resolving is the fist time Prowess affects the “visible game state,”) with maybe a CPV (“take 7” with a 6 power creature). What in fraction would you issue and, more importantly, would you rewind?

It's clear, by his statement, that he didn't miss his trigger - he just resolved it incorrectly, and that led to incorrect resolution of the Cached Defenses. Two GRVs from the same root cause, assess one Warning (unless it's upgrade time already, of course); given your description here, I'd quickly back this up to resolution of Cached Defenses (but I would NOT let him take back what might now seem like a poor play).

d:^D

It's clear that he didn't forget his trigger. But it's not “Forgotten Triggers”, it's “Missed Triggers”.

I'd agree if it was all one action: “Put 3 counters on Shu Yun, so with prowess it's a 7/6. Attack you”. But it's not.

I would say no prowess trigger. No infraction/rewind.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

t's clear, by his statement, that he didn't miss his trigger - he just resolved it incorrectly, and that led to incorrect resolution of the Cached Defenses. Two GRVs from the same root cause, assess one Warning (unless it's upgrade time already, of course); given your description here, I'd quickly back this up to resolution of Cached Defenses (but I would NOT let him take back what might now seem like a poor play).

That's what I ended up deciding on…

Aaron Henner
It's clear that he didn't forget his trigger. But it's not “Forgotten Triggers”, it's “Missed Triggers”.

I'd agree if it was all one action: “Put 3 counters on Shu Yun, so with prowess it's a 7/6. Attack you”. But it's not.

…but I'm not sure whether there is a clear-cut reason to prefer that line of reasoning over Aaron's line of reasoning. This is where I got stuck. Is there something Aaron and I are missing, or is this just a judgement call?

Aaron Henner
I would say no prowess trigger. No infraction/rewind.

Would you assess a TE:CPV for “take 7?”

I feel hesitant in calling this a Missed Trigger. I feel that if we open a
window where someone could miss a Prowess trigger to bolster a more
beneficial creature, there is a potential for abuse and a possible reward
for sloppy play. Then we have a tough call determining if the Prowess
trigger was missed because of out of order sequencing, misunderstanding, or
sloppiness, or if it was missed intentionally to get the more beneficial
bolster. I would rule this GRV for making an illegal choice on the
creature to bolster and that the Prowess trigger did happen.

Regarding a rewind, even though this is eligible for a partial fix since an
illegal choice was made on a continuous effect (+1/+1 counters), I agree
with rewinding to the choice on the Bolster effect. There's a couple
opportunities for decisions to be made based on the counters being on that
creature (what to attack/not attack with, what to block/not block) so
rewinding does not feel disruptive and feels to get to where we are
supposed to be if everything was resolved legally.

In my opinion, the root cause of “take 7” was because a creature was
bolstered that should not have been. So I would rule out TE:CPV since the
root cause was a GRV.

Thanks,
Jason Daniels

Hey Jason, thanks for your comment!

Two quick notes about your second paragraph:

1) Cached Defenses is not a “static ability generating a continuous effect
still on the battlefield.” This clause in the list of backups refers to
situations like forgetting to name a player for True-Name Nemesis. Cached
Defenses is a spell ability, not a static ability.

2) Nowadays, we evaluate whether the approved fixes apply *before* we
consider a more complicated backup. Back in the day, calling them “partial
fixes” made sense, as judges sometimes ended up choosing between applying
partial fixes or performing a full rewind. Now, that wording doesn't make
so much sense. Stealing from Riki Hayashi, I like calling them “default
fixes” rather than “partial fixes”, since it emphasizes that we consider
them first.

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

…but I'm not sure whether there is a clear-cut reason to prefer that line of reasoning over Aaron's line of reasoning. This is where I got stuck. Is there something Aaron and I are missing, or is this just a judgement call?

For a triggered ability like Prowess, the IPG states

IPG 2.1
A triggered ability that affects the game state in non-visible ways: The controller must take physical action or make it clear what the action is by the first time the change has an effect on the visible game state.

The eligibility of Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest as a choice for the Bolster 3 from Cached Defenses is contingent on whether or not the Prowess trigger happened. The first time the power and toughness change from Prowess had an effect on the visible game state was when those three counters got placed on Shu Yun instead of the Whisperer, indicating Shu Yun had the least toughness or was tied for the least toughness among Adamaro's creatures. The only way this could be true was if the Prowess trigger was missed.

As Aaron points out, if it were all done in one go, it's a GRV because then Adamaro is explicitly stating that Shu Yun is a valid Bolster choice after the Prowess trigger happens, which is demonstrably untrue.

Jason's concerns about potential for abuse are legitimate. If I feel that Adamaro was intending to abuse this sloppy play in order to gain advantage, I would investigate for cheating as in that case Adamaro would then be intentionally breaking a rule in order to gain advantage.

The biggest concern I have here with the Missed Trigger ruling (which I agree is the technically correct ruling) is that there will be no infraction and therefore nothing tracking this behavior over the course of the event, should Adamaro not get investigated for the first instance and then commit the same error again later in the event. In light of this, I would consider it prudent to investigate to rule out cheating immediately rather than wait to determine if the player repeats this behavior later.

If we are really concerned even after this, other judges on the floor can be informed to be on the lookout for this scenario in case there is a similar call, and if it is determined that it is the same player committing the same error then this could inform how we proceed. As all of these options seem reasonable, I am a fan of applying the Missed Trigger, no infraction, no penalty ruling.

If you feel the need for reporting an incident for tracking purposes, you
can do that even though you haven't issued a penalty. Just enter the
penalty in WER as a Missed Trigger, and add something along the lines “No
penalty issued. For tracking purposes only.” in the description field.

2015-07-07 18:13 GMT+02:00 Jacob Milicic <

Originally posted by Jacob Milicic:

The only way this could be true was if the Prowess trigger was missed.

I disagree - and it's fairly clear, from the example given, that the trigger was neither forgotten nor missed; the player misunderstood that Prowess would resolve first, making Shu Yun ineligible for Bolster. That's a GRV.

It's one thing to consciously take an action that moves us past the point where the trigger needs to be acknowledged. It's quite different to do so mistakenly, which is what seems to have happened here. He was very clear about the P/T at the appropriate time, but chose to Bolster before the Prowess resolved. (If you don't believe me, just ask him - LOL!)

d:^D

Scott, I do not disagree that what most likely happened here is Adamaro misunderstood when the Prowess trigger would resolve relative to making the Bolster choice for Cached Defenses.

That being said, is adding three +1/+1 counters to Shu Yun not taking a physical action and/or affecting the game in a visible fashion?

Originally posted by Jacob Milicic:

is adding three +1/+1 counters to Shu Yun not taking a physical action and/or affecting the game in a visible fashion?

Sure - but it's an illegal action, first & foremost.

This is a rather odd combination of circumstances, to be sure - but that's the sort of fun we encounter, at Sealed Deck events! :)

Adamaro isn't allowed to purposely ignore his triggers - the IPG is quite clear on that! - and he makes it clear, at what *normally* would be the appropriate time, that he hasn't missed the Prowess trigger. From that, the only conclusions are:

1. he forgot, but remembered “in time”
   
2. he thought he could Bolster before Prowess resolved
   

In the first case, while he doesn't acknowledge the trigger until damage would be dealt, that doesn't change the point in time where the trigger resolves. In the second case, he's just wrong about the order of things.

But in either case, putting the Bolster counters on Shu Yun is just wrong, wrongity-wrong-wrong-wrong! (Or, in our terms, a GRV.)

d:^D

So if Adamaro cast Feed the Clan instead of Cached Defenses with Shu Yun in play, announced and marked that he gained 5 life, then attacked and said it was 4 damage when no blocks were declared, this is also a GRV and not a Missed Trigger?

I get that triggers are assumed to have happened unless indicated otherwise. I guess I am not understanding what the purpose of the statement “by the first time” is in the IPG section on missed triggers quoted above (“…by the first time the change has an effect on the visible game state”) if it is not actually by the first time it would have an effect on the visible game state but rather by a certain moment that is most common for that “type” of non-visible game state changing trigger.

I am not disputing that the GRV ruling with a backup in the original scenario leads us to a more accurate game state with everything resolving as it would have with technically precise play. I even like it better. I am just failing to see how it is supported by written policy over the Missed Trigger.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

he forgot, but remembered “in time”

A similar example was discussed at the last New England Judge Conference. A plays a non-creature spell and then attacks with Jeskai InfiltratorJeskai Sage. N blocks with Zurgo Bellstriker. A says “go to damage?” and then says “Zurgo takes 2 and dies.” However, Zurgo can't block a 2-power creature. The ruling proposed by the presenter (which was not official) was that by allowing the block, player A missed his trigger, even though he remembered it and just forgot about Zurgo's text. Would the same reasoning about the original case apply to this discussion as well, meaning the ruling is a GRV and a rewind?

Edit: card fix

Edited Eli Meyer (July 7, 2015 02:30:01 PM)

Jeskai Infiltrator is 2-power, period. Jeskai Elder, perhaps?

Allowing the block is the first time the trigger needs to be acknowledged, so it's quite different.

As for Feed the Clan instead of Cached Defenses - it seems very much the same, really. The only way that's a Missed Trigger is if the Judge decides it's missed; none of the criteria for the *player* missing the trigger fits, here. Judges can't arbitrarily overrule a player's actions / statements and force missing a trigger, and that's what I'm reading in these objections.

A slight variation might help illustrate my point: Adamaro casts Feed the Clan, says “gain 5”, then attacks; when no blocks are declare, he says “take … oh, 4! and I should have gained 10, not 5”. Now it's quite clear that he did, in fact, miss that trigger; gaining 5 life is legal in that case, and only 3 damage is going to be dealt.

d:^D

But why is allowing a Zurgo, Bellstriker block a valid first point of acknowledgment while a Cached Defenses resolution is not? Why is the former not “an illegal action, first & foremost”?

Is it because it can be said Adamaro resolved objects on the stack in a wrong order? How about sacrificing a Solemn Simulacrum to Birthing Pod, searching your library for a 5CMC creature and putting it on the battlefield, shuffling the library, then saying “draw a card from Solemn”?

Edited Toby Hazes (July 7, 2015 02:39:04 PM)