Scott,

In the original scenario, would you give the NAP a Failure to Maintain Game state warning? NAP allowed the game to progress to blocks, and damage, I assume due to the understanding that the trigger was missed.

I think that the IPG makes clear that AP missed the trigger (possibly due to rules confusion, but don't think that matters).
But what really drives the point home for me is taking the view of the opponent.

How is the opponent supposed to know that the trigger was missed? In the usual prowess case (where there's no bolster), we tell players that if they want to know if their opponent has remembered the prowess trigger, then the only solution is to ask. I usually summarize the IPG and say “a player has only missed their prowess triggers if they prove they've missed it”. But that's exactly what's happened here. The policy is fairly permissive towards players with triggers: they can be silent for a long time about invisible things, and for triggers with visible effects on resolution we say that casting of an instant doesn't make the the trigger missed. Each of these gives a clear cut baseline understanding to the opponent. Allowing the interpretation of the bolster as being a GRV suddenly throws that entirely out the window, and means a player can never really be sure if a trigger has been missed, based on whether their opponent misunderstood some rule or interaction.

Doing a rewind here would be simple, and a GRV would allow that. But what if a rewind wasn't possible. Imagine NAP blocks with a 5/5 (thinking Yun Shu is 6/5), then casts anticipate (good luck backing up through that). What then? Is Yun Shu a 7/6? What do you tell NAP? “Sorry, when you went to block you should have asked your opponent ‘I just need to check, when you bolstered on Yun Shu, had you forgotten your prowess trigger or had you committed a GRV?’”? Plus then also possibly giving NAP a Failure to Maintain Game State?

In the simple case of a 2/2 prowess, casting a simple spell, attacking, then saying “take …. oh wait prowess, yeah, take 3” is allowed. We have a concept of Missed Triggers, not Forgotten Triggers. I view all these scenarios the same: both feed the clan variations, Jeskai Elder vs Zurgo, and Bolster. Missed.

I can't recall where, but I once read “Always answer a hypothetical with a hypothetical”. In that vein (and somewhat tongue-in-cheek) - if you add 2 more tweaks and approximately 6 different words, I *might* change my position.

d:^p

OK, a bit more time to consider … I'm thinking the Zurgo scenario could also be handled similarly.

Judge: so, A, why did you let Zurgo block?
A1: I forgot about his restriction –> GRV, backup to Declare Blockers
A2: I forgot about Prowess –> Missed Trigger, Zurgo is legally blocking a 1/2 Elder.

In the original scenario, we could probably ask that same question, but the answer set is different:
Judge: so, A, why did you Bolster on Shu Yun?
A1: I forgot about Prowess –> Missed Trigger, Shu Yun is 6/5 and the Bolster was legal
A2: I thought the Bolster happened before the Prowess –> GRV, backup
A3: I didn't realize Shu Yun wasn't the smallest dude any more –> GRV, backup

How is all of that different from what I'm reading, from others? I'm not assuming - nor forcing! - the Missed Trigger that they probably didn't miss, just because they did something wrong. I'm looking for what really went wrong.

Admittedly, my initial responses re: the original scenario did assume, because they clearly acknowledged the trigger at the *usual* appropriate moment, they didn't Miss it earlier - they just GRVd their way into that mess.

d:^D

Originally posted by IPG:

A triggered ability triggers, but the player controlling the ability doesn’t demonstrate awareness of the trigger’s existence the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion

The first time prowess usually has an effect is during combat damage. But policy doesn't specify “usually”.
Also, the player has to demonstrate awareness, not simply to have awareness.

How often is the trigger from Geist of Saint Traft missed? (commonly)
How often is the trigger from Geist of Saint Traft forgotten? (virtually never)


I would say, for invisible triggers, “If a player takes an action, or allows an action to happen, that is legal without the trigger and illegal with the trigger, then it is missed”. (Similar for the inverse: “If a player takes an action, or allows an action to happen, that is illegal without the trigger, and legal with the trigger, then the trigger is locked-in”). I can easily explain that to players. I can apply that non-arbitrarily. I believe it complies with policy.
(Edit: for both of those maxims, I'm assuming that the trigger so far hasn't yet been determined to be missed or locked-in, and is currently undetermined)

Edited Aaron Henner (July 7, 2015 04:52:13 PM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

How is all of that different from what I'm reading, from others? I'm not assuming - nor forcing! - the Missed Trigger that they probably didn't miss, just because they did something wrong. I'm looking for what really went wrong.

Why do they get their trigger when they do something wrong in some situations that are visible, but not combat damage? If the trigger is assumed to happen unless the player explicitly states otherwise (they have to actually say they forgot about Prowess in those cases) except when combat damage is being applied, that does not seem particularly consistent.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Judge: so, A, why did you let Zurgo block?
A1: I forgot about his restriction –> GRV, backup to Declare Blockers
A2: I forgot about Prowess –> Missed Trigger, Zurgo is legally blocking a 1/2 Elder.

N made the illegal blocking assignment with Zurgo. How does A get a GRV?

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

N made the illegal blocking assignment with Zurgo. How does A get a GRV?

Sounds like two for the price of one.

Sometimes you get that instead of the usual GRV/FtMGS Combo Pack.

From the IPG:

In a situation where the effect that caused the infraction is controlled by one player, but the illegal action is taken by
another player, both receive a Game Play Error – Game Rule Violation. For example, if a player casts Path to Exile
on an opponent’s creature and the opponent puts the creature into the graveyard, both players receive a Game Play
Error — Game Rule Violation infraction

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

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

Thinking in this, when the player choose his creature, he choose wrong. You can finally set that the chosen creature was Shun Yu after the prowess was resolved, but the choice is illegal, so, there u have it, GPE - GRV - Warning, after that you can make a rollback to the point that error was done, further damage in this situation is minimal.

Originally posted by Jacob Milicic:

Scott Marshall
How is all of that different from what I'm reading, from others? I'm not assuming - nor forcing! - the Missed Trigger that they probably didn't miss, just because they did something wrong. I'm looking for what really went wrong.

Why do they get their trigger when they do something wrong in some situations that are visible, but not combat damage? If the trigger is assumed to happen unless the player explicitly states otherwise (they have to actually say they forgot about Prowess in those cases) except when combat damage is being applied, that does not seem particularly consistent.

I think this is a large part of the issue: Viewing this interaction between the prowess trigger and Cached Defenses as a visible one. Certainly, the choice of what creature to bolster is a visible one (both in terms of the choice and the counters), but the trigger itself is still largely “invisible” at that point. We can't see the power and toughness change, and we can really only see the effect it might have on the game. Hence why it's normally only detected when combat damage is dealt, since we're not actually seeing the power change, but rather the effect it has on the game.

Given this interaction is at a point that is largely a non-traditional one, and given that the ordering of objects being put onto the stack is somewhat misunderstood, I can also see how this might be more GRV than MT as well.

In fact, while we can look at this in terms of what actually happens (via game rules or policy), we have the player potentially admitting to us that he put the prowess trigger onto the stack “before” Cached Defenses and resolved the two in the wrong order. That signals GRV here, not MT. Forcing the MT is cleaving too closely to policy, without considering the circumstances that brought about the error here. We may know precisely what the rules say and how things should have happened, but it is clear the player does not know that.

I don't see this as an inconsistency with approaching potential MT situations, since we're really trying to identify the root cause of the error here. It may appear to be a MT, based on the normal situation where this kind of trigger would be missed, but I think the circumstances that led us to this point are inherently point at this trigger not being missed as opposed to resolved in the wrong order. And yes, that may mean the exact infraction could depend precisely on how our interview of the player progresses. (So, a comparable situation with one or two changes could result in this being MT rather than GRV.)

Just to address a side point, about the IPG's “double GRV” clause…

Josiah, the bit of the IPG you quoted is actually out-of-date. The current version is:

Originally posted by IPG:

If a player takes an action called for by an effect controlled by his or her opponent, but does it incorrectly, both players receive a Game Play Error – Game Rule Violation. For example, if a player casts Path to Exile on an opponent’s creature and the opponent puts the creature into the graveyard, both players receive this infraction.

So, if NAP declares an illegal block with his own Zurgo, we would award just one GRV, to NAP. In this scenario, NAP was the only player who took an illegal action per se. AP should still receive FTMGS, of course, but this is not a double GRV.

As another example, let's say I control Thalia, Guardian of Thraben. Uncle Scott casts Lightning Bolt and forgets to pay the extra {1}, and I don't point out the error immediately. Uncle Scott should get a GRV, but I would not. Even though Scott's error was “caused” by text on my card, that's not relevant. Thalia is changing the rules of the game, and Scott didn't obey that new rule; that's treated differently from a situation where one of my one-shot effects tells Scott to do something (e.g. exiling a creature for my Path to Exile), but Scott carries out that instruction incorrectly (e.g. puts in the graveyard instead).

You can read a little more about this on Toby's blog, when he talked about the clarification to the double GRV clause when it went into effect.

And to give a more shameless plug, I recently did a series about Game Rule Violations on my own blog, including several situations where it looks like “double GRV” might apply.

Originally posted by Paul Baranay:

Good to know, thanks.

Be nice if WotC replaced the old IPG with the new one so Google wouldn't do that to people.

Brian (and Scott):
In the original scenario would you issue Failure to Maintain Game State to NAP?

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

N made the illegal blocking assignment with Zurgo. How does A get a GRV?

Interesting leap you made there, as I didn't specify who got the GRV. I can see how you could infer that, so I'll apologize for lack of clarity.

But it's an interesting conundrum, eh?

N makes what would be an illegal block, *if* A has remembered the Prowess trigger. A doesn't stop that block from happening right away, even though it becomes clear (later) that the trigger was not missed.

We've said, repeatedly, if you want to choose your line of play based on whether or not your opponent remembered a trigger, then you might have to ask them about it, or just assume it was remembered. We have not said that it can be OK to assume a trigger was missed - and that's what N does here, by declaring a block that can't be legal unless a poor assumption ends up being correct. And A allows that, so they're both complicit in corrupting the game state.

If policy supported it, I'd want to give both of them Failure to Maintain Game State - but we don't do that.

In this case, N gets the GRV for an illegal block, and A definitely failed to maintain the game state by allowing it, and gets the FtMGS warning.

Bearz, thanks for the links, both to Toby's blog and to yours - definitely a “shameless” plug, as there's no shame in the good stuff you're putting out there! :)

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

We have not said that it can be OK to assume a trigger was missed - and that's what N does here, by declaring a block that can't be legal unless a poor assumption ends up being correct. And A allows that, so they're both complicit in corrupting the game state.

In this case, am I correct in assuming that because N doesn't know for a fact that his block is illegal (even though he knows it would be illegal if he assumed wrong), his actions don't meet the requirements for USC: Cheating?

Originally posted by Aaron Henner:

Brian (and Scott):
In the original scenario would you issue Failure to Maintain Game State to NAP?

Yes, I believe that based on the circumstances as discussed, that infraction applies to NAP. Scott's post provides the rationale, which I agree with in its entirety.