Hey all, welcome back to the Knowledge Pool! This week's scenario is Gold level, so everyone is able to participate from the start! Credit for this scenario'a inspiration goes to L3 Sebastian Pekala from Poland.

The blog post for the scenario is here.

At a PPTQ you’re head judging, Art attacks Nin with a Dashed Lightning Berserker. The players calculate damage, then Art passes the turn. Nin takes her turn, then passes back the turn. Art attacks with the Berserker again on his next turn, pumping it multiple times with its activated ability. With the last of those activations on the stack, Nin calls you over and points out that the Berserker should have been returned to Art’s hand at the end of his last turn.

When you investigate further, you learn that Art had completely forgotten that he dashed this Berserker in since he cast one normally earlier in the game. You also learn that Nin noticed the issue during her turn, but decided to wait to call you until now to throw off Art’s game plan. What do you do?

Edited Patrick Vorbroker (Sept. 4, 2015 10:43:43 AM)

702.108a Dash represents three abilities: two static abilities that function while the card with dash is on the stack, one of which may create a delayed triggered ability, and a static ability that functions while the object with dash is on the battlefield. “Dash ” means “You may cast this card by paying rather that its mana cost,” “If this spell’s dash cost was paid, return the permanent this spell becomes to its owner’s hand at the beginning of the next end step,” and “As long as this permanent’s dash cost was paid, it has haste.” Paying a card’s dash cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f–h.

From this, we know that Art has missed his trigger to return Lightning Berserker to his hand. Nin is never required to point out her opponent's missed triggers, (IPG Section 2.1) and she can never be penalized with a FtMGS or USC-Cheating by declining to remind her opponent about his triggers. (IPG Section 2.6)

GPE: Missed Trigger for Art, with a Warning (as this is a decidedly detrimental trigger), no penalty for Nin, and the delayed triggered ability resolves either the next time a player would gain priority or at the beginning of the next phase, the first time a player gains priority.

Edited Jeremy Fain (Sept. 4, 2015 07:04:29 PM)

This is not cheating because it doesn't fit all of the criteria for USC-Cheating (A. A player must be trying to gain an advantage (true) and B. Must be aware that they are doing something that is illegal (false, your opponent is not required to remind you of your triggers)). USC-Cheating states that it must meet all of the requirements or else it isn't cheating.

In the MTR, we also have some guidance about missed triggers, and that opponents can only bring them up within a turn in order to prevent abuse of the IPG in a situation like this. I think that I would rule no infraction and tell the players to continue playing and be more careful.

—
After reading the discussion that came after:

I still would not DQ the player for cheating as both criteria is not met as I stated above. I am now thinking that I woul d apply the fix of having the opponent choose to put the trigger on the stack now, or at the beginning of the next step.

Edited Brandon Salaz (Sept. 5, 2015 12:40:11 AM)

So, my first reaction was that this was USC-Cheating by Nin under the "A person notices an offense committed in his or her (or a teammate's) match and does not call attention to it" clause.

However, the IPG section 2.1 states that a player is never required to mention an opponent's missed trigger. Even though I would issue a penalty to Art (see below), I don't think that failing to mention the trigger until a later time is quite cheating. However, I think this is right on the bleeding edge between cheating and being very competitive and I would have a talk with Nin about how intentionally failing to report any violation that isn't a missed trigger is definitely cheating.

Moving on to Art, he has committed GPE-missed trigger. This trigger is generally considered detrimental to the controller and so I will upgrade the penalty to a warning. As for a fix, Dash creates a delayed zone change ability so Nin gets to choose if the Lightning Berserker goes to Art's hand the next time a player would get priority or the first time a player gets priority at the start of the post-combat main phase.

GPE-Missed trigger Warning for Art. the Dash delayed zone change trigger is detrimental. Nat is not required to remind an opponent of their triggers, thus does not meet the requirements for USC-Cheating or GPE-FtMGS. We apply the partial fix and resolve the zone change trigger, putting the lighting Berserker back in Art's hand.

Before reading

Art has missed a detrimental delayed trigger (returning the lightning berserker to hand at end of turn). From the OP I’m convinced that he simply forgot the trigger.

If we were just resolving this error we would simply allow Nim to decide if we resolve the trigger the next time a player would get priority or when a player gets priority at the start of the next phase returning the berserker back in Art’s hand as part of the additional remedy and I'd issue a warning:

Originally posted by IPG 2.1. Game Play Error — Missed Trigger:

If the triggered ability is a delayed triggered ability that changes the zone of an object, resolve it… the opponent chooses whether to resolve the ability the next time a player would get priority or when a player would get priority at the start of the next phase.

The more interesting question though regards Nim. He has spotted an error committed by Art and allowed the game state to develop to his advantage before drawing attention to the error (Art will have invested significant mana and be in the middle of his combat step when this error is corrected).

Here we get into an intersection of several rules

Originally posted by IPG 2.1. Game Play Error — Missed Trigger:

Opponents are not required to point out triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so if they wish.

IPG 2.6. Game Play Error — Failure to Maintain Game State
If a judge believes a player is intentionally not pointing out other players’ illegal actions, either for his or her own advantage, or in the hope of bringing it up at a more strategically advantageous time, they should consider an Unsporting Conduct — Cheating infraction

IPG 4.8. Unsporting Conduct — Cheating
A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents, lies to a tournament official, or notices an offense committed in his or her (or a teammate's) match and does not call attention to it. Additionally, the offense must meet the following criteria for it to be considered Cheating:
>The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
>The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.
If all criteria are not met, the offense is not Cheating and is handled by a different infraction.

On this basis though I personally feel something shady has been done, there is no infraction for Nim.

<edited for timing clarity around the resolution of the trigger>

After Reading

I would just add that this is an ability that does not expire (explicitly stated by the IPG in 2.1) so this would be the same resolution no matter how long had passed.

Edited Marc Shotter (Sept. 4, 2015 10:29:40 AM)

Failure to Maintain Game State would often cover this sort of play by Nim but the definition explicitly excludes the missed trigger.

Not reminding an opponent about his or her triggered abilities is never Failure to Maintain Game State nor Cheating.

So I don't think we can even consider cheating, however I agree with Marc that there is no infraction for Nim even though the play seems morally dubious

Edit - a second thought. Not reminding an opponent about about his or her triggered abilities could be considered a different situation from reminding them at a point that causes maximum disruption. However this still doesn't seem to be an illegal action under the definition of cheating

Edited Graham Hopkins (Sept. 4, 2015 11:28:46 AM)

I am inclined to agree with the earlier posters about this scenario. I would like to play devil's advocate for the moment though because one bit of information has not been addressed yet. “…pumping it multiple times… with the last of the activated abilities on the stack…”

By waiting for the opponent to activate abilities before calling a judge, has Nin crossed the line and cheated? Lets assume that Nin is supposed to call a judge the moment Art attacked with his dash creature. In this case I believe she has committed a cheating infraction. Nin allowed illegal activations to occur by waiting to call for a judge. Nin did so to throw Art off his game, in other words gain an advantage.

At this point I would stop the match and issue two penalties: a warning to Art for the missed detrimental trigger and a disqualification to Nin for cheating. The last step would be the disqualification process, but that seems beyond the scope of this scenario.

Please bear in mind that I post this as devil's advocate and believe that previous posters have probably gotten this situation correctly identified.

Originally posted by Gilbert Anderson:

Please bear in mind that I post this as devil's advocate and believe that previous posters have probably gotten this situation correctly identified.

I also identify that this game of Magic has turned into a game of “Gotcha”, which is definitely something worth frowning upon.
IMHO this will at least warrant an extensive chat, if not a DQ.
Another thing to consider might be UC - Minor for taking an action that is disruptive to the tournament and its participants.

I believe people are looking too much into this situation.

While Nin doesn't have to point out missed triggers, there is nothing saying he can't wait for the most benefic moment to do so. In fact, greater knowledge of rules should bring him an advantage. There is nothing wrong with wanting to win by any means within the rules.

Cheating says:

- You have to be trying to gain advantage;
- You have to know to be doing something illegal.

Nin is trying to gain advantage, but there is nothing illegal about what they are doing. Therefore, it is not cheating.

My ruling:

Ruling: Art has committed GPE - Missed Trigger. As the trigger is detrimental, such infraction carries the penalty of a Warning.

Fix: Since it is a delayed trigger that changes the zone of an object, we resolve it. We ask Nin if they want to resolve the ability the next time a player would get priority or at the start of the next phase. Remind Art to be more mindful of their own triggers.

Let me put this here again:

Not reminding an opponent about his or her triggered abilities is
never Failure to Maintain Game State nor Cheating.

Consider the meaning of the word ‘never’.

On 4 September 2015 at 21:42, Jonas Drieghe
<forum-21035-2851@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

Originally posted by Devin Smith:

Not reminding an opponent about his or her triggered abilities is
never Failure to Maintain Game State nor Cheating.

I agree that not reminding is never FtMGS or Cheating. I just don't like the game of gotcha :)

Edited Jonas Drieghe (Sept. 4, 2015 03:08:01 PM)

You don't have to remind opponents of their missed triggers. There is also nothing in the rules that specifies when you must do so, should you choose to. Nin has not committed an infraction. Art however, has missed a detrimental trigger and would receive a warning (GPE - Missed Trigger). Since this is a delayed zone change trigger, we must resolve it no matter how much time has passed. Nin will get to choose whether the trigger is resolved the next time a player would receive priority, or at the beginning of the next phase.

On a side note, I'm not particularly fond of how this works out, but Art has made a mistake and Nin has played within the rules to capitalize on that mistake.

It's important not to let your gut feel for how things SHOULD be, get in the way of applying policy correctly. Nor should you let your own personal interpretation of Sporting lead you to single out someone for a “stern chat” or to “keep an eye on”. If you treat a player unfairly then they'll leave the event with a lower opinion of you and of the judge program.

This also isn't a gotcha. Nobody has been tricked here. Art made an error - one which was 100% avoidable. Nin just happens to know the rules here, which allows her to best gain advantage from the error. Much like a good player gets to capitalise on an opponents strategic error.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

It's important not to let your gut feel for how things SHOULD be, get in the way of applying policy correctly.

Absolutely. However, feeling something is off might warrant a discussion about said policy :)