Well, during my last tournament I had a situation during the semifinal.
There was this Jeskai deck that advanced through the tournament facing aggro decks, but he face a control deck finally.
During the tournament he call all his triggers and normally no player had a response against the Jeskai Ascendancy, so he just resolve them in order, but never being interrupted by his oponent.
In this match he started with this but when he started to fly through the Ascendancy the oponent say wait, but he had drawn a card by his triggers.
So, we were in an akward situation.

For what I thought the scenario and his resolution is:
First, GPE - GRV, after an ability is put in the stack he didn't give his oponent priority to take an action, so is an ilegal ability resolution. This is sanctioned with a Warning.
The next problem is given by the first mistake, drawing a card that musn't be drawn yet. This action is ilegal and fall under GPE - HCE, and his sanction is Warning.

But, because the second error is given by the other, the sanction is only the highest, a Warning but the resolution is first correct the hand, giving his oponent the choice to pick a card and return it to the random portion of the deck and shuffle it, second, going back to the action where game state was legal, the moment when the jeskai trigger ask for priority.

Do you think that this is the right resolution for this situation, there's better one?

Listening comments, correct me if you think that i should be corrected.

Best regards!

Edited Cristóbal Vigar Guerrero (Feb. 9, 2016 05:36:45 AM)

I think this solution is a bit to harsh for this situation. Sure, he should have waited for his opponents response or a simple “ok”, but because the first error is leading to this HCE and he would draw a card anyway (or is there something which counters abilities in this format?) for his triggered ability i would simply take a random card from his hand, put it on top of the library and rewind to the point where Jeskai Ascendancys triggers are still on the stack.

Edited Philipp Hary (Feb. 9, 2016 07:26:39 AM)

I'm having a hard time concocting a case where responding to the trigger itself matters here; I guess if the Ascendancy player draws into countermagic?

The first thing that goes wrong appears to be the HCE - “not giving priority” doesn't really fly here, I don't think. That said, the very first remedy on HCE handles this: If a pending ability on the stack would result in a legal overall outcome (e.g. a draw action that has been resolved out of order), continue to resolve that part of the stack to restore the game state.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

I'm having a hard time concocting a case where responding to the trigger itself matters here; I guess if the Ascendancy player draws into countermagic?

The first thing that goes wrong appears to be the HCE - “not giving priority” doesn't really fly here, I don't think. That said, the very first remedy on HCE handles this: If a pending ability on the stack would result in a legal overall outcome (e.g. a draw action that has been resolved out of order), continue to resolve that part of the stack to restore the game state.

The issue with letting this play out is that is gives AP card advantage that they are not entitled to, this pretty well boils down to OoOS by the Jeskai player. What the NAP has as their response isn't relevant, they are entitled to it. Ideally the Jeskai player would have established a shortcut if they wished to just run through their combo.

In this match he started with this but when he started to fly through the Ascendancy the oponent say wait, but he had drawn a card by his triggers.
So, we were in an akward situation.

This is a place where your investigative skills get tested. Did AP fly through his triggers without given NAP a chance to respond? Was NAP just trying to get AP trouble? Do they two players agree on what happened? What about spectators?

I think in the scenario where AP rushed his triggers without giving NAP a change to respond, performing a backup to when the trigger was put on the stack is fine. Remember we will backup or apply the fix within HCE, this is what Philipp was getting at.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

I'm having a hard time concocting a case where responding to the trigger itself matters here; I guess if the Ascendancy player draws into countermagic?

The first thing that goes wrong appears to be the HCE - “not giving priority” doesn't really fly here, I don't think. That said, the very first remedy on HCE handles this: If a pending ability on the stack would result in a legal overall outcome (e.g. a draw action that has been resolved out of order), continue to resolve that part of the stack to restore the game state.

No, actually he draws because in the past games he never was interrupted by something diferent as, for instance, a counter to the spells that triggered the Ascendancy, in this case he was interrupted by a removal, but he act too fast to his oponent to answer. So, I don't thought that he was trying to make something illegal o winning advantage by his physical skills (if he had one).

Quoting the rules we have this:
603.3d The remainder of the process for putting a triggered ability on the stack is identical to the process for casting a spell listed in rules 601.2c–d. If a choice is required when the triggered ability goes on the stack but no legal choices can be made for it, or if a rule or a continuous effect otherwise makes the ability illegal, the ability is simply removed from the stack.
601.2i Once the steps described in 601.2a–h are completed, the spell becomes cast. Any abilities that trigger when a spell is cast or put onto the stack trigger at this time. If the spell’s controller had priority before casting it, he or she gets priority.

So, as I know, he didn't respect the priority, then is a violation to a rule, isn't? Because the ascendancy trigger must not started to be resolved yet, they're just were placed in the stack and were waiting to be resolved after the priority step that was omitted.

Please correct me if you catch something that I forget.

This issue was discussed at length very recently (but with Jace, Vryn's Prodigy rather than Jeskai Ascendancy), see http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/23243/?page=4. The conclusion was that giving infractions or using the Thoughtseize fix gives the opponent too much of an advantage, as it's very easy to get someone with this sort of thing in almost every draw including the draw step (“Wait, I wanted to do something in your upkeep!”).

The best solution seems to be: If there is a legitimate response and the ordering matters you can perform a backup by returning a random card (this could give either player an advantage), otherwise resolve the loot trigger but let the player respond to the untap/boost trigger. Instruct players to be more careful and make it clear to the Ascendancy player that he needs to confirm with his opponents that they have no responses before just “going off”.

As for a situation where responding to the trigger matters, it can be as simple as wanting to Lightning Bolt the creature before he has the chance to loot into further instants that can respond to the bolt by growing the creature.

Originally posted by Mats Törnros:

This issue was discussed at length very recently (but with Jace, Vryn's Prodigy rather than Jeskai Ascendancy), see http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/23243/?page=4. The conclusion was that giving infractions or using the Thoughtseize fix gives the opponent too much of an advantage, as it's very easy to get someone with this sort of thing in almost every draw including the draw step (“Wait, I wanted to do something in your upkeep!”).

The best solution seems to be: If there is a legitimate response and the ordering matters you can perform a backup by returning a random card (this could give either player an advantage), otherwise resolve the loot trigger but let the player respond to the untap/boost trigger. Instruct players to be more careful and make it clear to the Ascendancy player that he needs to confirm with his opponents that they have no responses before just “going off”.

As for a situation where responding to the trigger matters, it can be as simple as wanting to Lightning Bolt the creature before he has the chance to loot into further instants that can respond to the bolt by growing the creature.

I see, well if was talked previously.

But, with that information in in the records, if you see the card or cards that the player with the Ascendancy/Jace draw, it would be an option to make a deviation from the rules to prevent the use of that card in a response after the loot resolution.

I said this because, I'm thinking in a solution with the less advantage to any player, obviously if im not satisfied with the random card to the top.

It just an idea and I understand that is out from the rules, it's a strange thing, but, with this information in consideration, I don't know. You'll consider it at least? In my case, honestly, I'll just not even consider to do something like the parcial fix that I'm proposing, but, maybe I'm just not considering something.

I'm waiting your answers guys, and thanks to everyone who has shared with us their comments.

Originally posted by Cristóbal Vigar Guerrero:

it would be an option to make a deviation from the rules to prevent the use of that card in a response after the loot resolution.

Please, don't use unusual game state or progressions - including what a judge may or may not have seen! - to justify deviating from policy.

IPG
Significant and exceptional circumstances are rare—a table collapses, a booster contains cards from a different set, etc.

If you feel that a remedy seems wrong, that's a signal that you should ask the players to wait a few minutes; go confirm with another judge or two, re-read the sections of policy you're applying, and consider that you might be overlooking a key phrase. If your additional review leads you back to the remedy, apply it; your “gut feel” is neither significant, nor exceptional, and thus doesn't support deviation.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Cristóbal Vigar Guerrero
it would be an option to make a deviation from the rules to prevent the use of that card in a response after the loot resolution.

Please, don't use unusual game state or progressions - including what a judge may or may not have seen! - to justify deviating from policy.

IPG
Significant and exceptional circumstances are rare—a table collapses, a booster contains cards from a different set, etc.

If you feel that a remedy seems wrong, that's a signal that you should ask the players to wait a few minutes; go confirm with another judge or two, re-read the sections of policy you're applying, and consider that you might be overlooking a key phrase. If your additional review leads you back to the remedy, apply it; your “gut feel” is neither significant, nor exceptional, and thus doesn't support deviation.

d:^D

Okey, thanks for the advice Scott.