Hello!

Here's a situation I discussed with another L2 judge and we weren't able to agree:
A controls Chasm Guide, Firemantle Mage, Kor Bladewhirl and Tajuru Beastmaster. In the first Main Phase A casts Cliffside Lookout then proceeds to attack and declares all the creatures as attackers.
N asks if they may declare blockers, A says “Yes”. Then N asks “what did trigger this turn you didn't explicitly point out?” A points at corresponding cards and says: "All my creatures have haste (Chasm Guide), menace (Firemantle Mage) and +1/+1 (Tajuru Beastmaster)".
Then N assigns blockers.

Here are the questions:
1. Is Kor Bladewhirl's trigger missed?
2. Is information on triggered abilities resolved this turn considered free? In other words, are resolved triggers considered game actions?

1) For Kor Bladewhirl, the declare attackers step is the first time the trigger would affect the game state non-visibly; so at the point where he has “declared his attackers,” he is required to acknowledge the trigger or it is considered missed. (MTR 2.1) “The controller must make the change known by the first time the change has an effect on the visible game state.”

The Kor Bladewhirl trigger is the only one that seems missed with certainty because it creates an extra combat step.

2) Players are REQUIRED to announce the triggers the first time they would effect the game state. Its combat and they are now effecting game state (particularly first strike or menace because it effects the way an opponent blocks). The AP could refuse to give the information, but at that point it seems they end up missing their trigger because they aren't announcing them.

But I'm really not sure what type of information.

Edit: Miss information/Correction

Edited Jessica Livingston (March 14, 2016 12:46:46 PM)

Hi, although I agree that that bladewhirl's ability is missed, I disagree with Jessica statment:

Strictly adhering to the MTR, because he doesn't recognize any of his triggers before allowing his opponent to move to the declare blockers. Because he didn't do so - his triggers all should have been missed.

Under my understanding, the change the abilities have on the visible game state differ: Haste is acknowledge when creatures attack (at least usually), menace when an opponents tries to block with 1 creature and he says: “nope, menace”, First strike and the +1/+1 on the first damage step.

Nevertheless, when NAP asked about the triggers he wasn't asking about the characteristics of a card (at least no directly) but about which abilities were resolved, and therefore they are free information (under my understanding, they are actions). At that point, AP clearly missed one of them, and I believe we should uphold that statement as a prove of a missed trigger.

From Annotated IPG:

You are to assume it happened until you have evidence that it didn’t. This is an important point. Just as you can acknowledge a trigger happened earlier than required, you can also indicate the trigger didn’t happen earlier than required. For example, if you untap with a Kragma Butcher and say nothing indicating the trigger, it is assumed to be a 4/3. However, the controller can indicate earlier than combat damage that he forgot the trigger. Attacking with an Ensnaring Bridge on the battlefield might indicate its trigger was missed. Answering “what’s that creature’s power?” with “it’s a 2/3” is an indication it was missed.

Originally posted by IPG:

A triggered ability that affects the game state in non-visible ways: The controller must make the change known by the first time the change has an effect on the visible game state.

So the player didn't have to mention the first-strike until we begin the first combat damage step, which is when the first strike would be visible, however…

Originally posted by IPG:

Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately apparent. The opponent’s benefit is in not having to point out triggered abilities, although this does not mean that they can cause triggers to be missed. If an opponent requires information about the precise timing of a triggered ability or needs details about a game object that may be affected by a resolved triggered ability, that player may need to acknowledge that ability’s existence before its controller does.

1) In this instance I'd rule missed trigger for the Kor Bladewhirl as the opponent specifically asked about the triggers and in answering the AP did not mention that one. (underlining for the next question)

2) I'd argue that you can ask about specific triggers as free information, so: “Did the Kor Bladewhirl trigger?”, but you can't simply ask “What triggered?” and expect the opponent to cover this.

The AP in the scenario would be entitled to reply “was there a specific trigger you wanted to know about?” or decline to answer. The question asked isn't one they have to answer as I believe this is derived information, but the fact they answer the question as asked means they must give full and complete information and therefore the Bladewhirl is missed. The NAP is required to acknowledge specific triggers if they want to know more about them.

Edited Marc Shotter (March 16, 2016 07:31:32 AM)

Marc, I think there might be a little misunderstanding about the obligations of each kind of information.

Free information is information to which all players are entitled access (no lying, no omissions).
Derived is information that can be answered partially or not at all (as it usually require some skill or calculation to determine) (no lying) .
Private is information that you can lie about (like the contents of your hand/deck).

The AP in the scenario would be entitled to reply “was there a specific trigger you wanted to know about?” or decline to answer. The question asked isn't one they have to answer as I believe this is derived information, but the fact they answer the question as asked means they must give full and complete information and therefore the Bladewhirl is missed. The NAP is required to acknowledge specific triggers if they want to know more about them.

If the triggers are derived information (which I don't think they are, but we can discuss that :) ), the player would be able to not answer, answer it completely or answer it partially, as long as there are no lies. Therefore, if we state that the question is not pointing to game actions but to the characteristics of the objects in play (which is derived), then he would be able to legally omit it until dmg step.

Free Information
…
- Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the games
…

Derived Information
…
- All characteristics of objects in public zones that are not defined as free information
…

Trigger
…
“603.2. Whenever a game event or game state matches a triggered ability’s trigger event, that ability automatically triggers. The ability doesn’t do anything at this point.”
..

The Question “what did trigger this turn you didn't explicitly point out?” asks about triggers, and triggers are game events and arent game events and game actions the same thing?

Asking what triggered and what the trigger actually did are 2 seperate things, so asking what triggered ask for free information, asking “And what are your beautiful allies now?” would be asking for “Derived Information”, wouldn't it?

my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Sandro Carlucci:

The Question “what did trigger this turn you didn't explicitly point out?” asks about triggers, and triggers are game events and aren't game events and game actions the same thing?

Asking what triggered and what the trigger actually did are 2 separate things, so asking what triggered ask for free information, asking “And what are your beautiful allies now?” would be asking for “Derived Information”, wouldn't it?

That's my read, basically.

I would say that a hyper-technical read of the communication policy would say that the question, "What triggers resolved this turn that you didn't explicitly point out?" is free information. The resolution of a triggers is a game action that actually has an effect on the board (i.e. gives creatures first strike). Technically a trigger triggering doesn't do anything to the board.

That level of semantic games is, I think, above and beyond what we should reasonably expect of a player. “What triggers happened this turn that currently affect the board?” is, to my mind, what the communication policy is talking about when it classifies “Details of past game actions that still affect the game state.”

Given that A was required to answer this question about free information without omission, I would rule that they've missed the Bladewhirl trigger. I would rule the same if they had been asked specifically about the Bladewhirl trigger and answered “No, it didn't trigger.”

If, however, N had asked, “Do all of your creatures have first strike?” A would be justified in saying, “I don't have to answer that.”

The effect of the triggered abilities, as well as their very presence, is derived information; triggered abilities are not game actions. Answering questions about derived information incompletely is allowed, as long as what you have said is true. Alice has neglected to mention the Kor Blademaster trigger, but not doing so is not demonstrating a lack of awareness - this is not information they are obligated to share. I would rule that the trigger is not missed as described.

This is, realistically, no different than playing a foreign copy of Vampire Nighthawk, being asked “what does that do?” and answering “It's a 2/3 with flying and lifelink” but neglecting to mention that it also has deathtouch.

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (March 14, 2016 08:10:21 PM)

Asking what a creature “does” and asking “what affects are on that” are very different questions. They might be looking for the same information but (in my opinion) one is asking for the derived information of the creatures characteristics and the other is asking about previous game actions that are currently being influencing the creature and game state, putting a trigger on the stack and resolving it definitely counts as an in game action to me,

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

The effect of the triggered abilities, as well as their very presence, is derived information; triggered abilities are not game actions. Answering questions about derived information incompletely is allowed, as long as what you have said is true. Alice has neglected to mention the Kor Blademaster trigger, but not doing so is not demonstrating a lack of awareness - this is not information they are obligated to share. I would rule that the trigger is not missed as described.

This is, realistically, no different than playing a foreign copy of Vampire Nighthawk, being asked “what does that do?” and answering “It's a 2/3 with flying and lifelink” but neglecting to mention that it also has deathtouch.

I would disagree here and say that the presence and effect of triggered abilities is free information. There seems to be some confusion because the comprehensive rules uses the term “game action” to refer to a specific subset of actions that don't use the stack, such as drawing for the turn or untapping. Applying this definition to the usage of “game action” in the magic tournament rules lead to completely impossible situations where one player basically cannot play the game.

A player must absolutely be able to ask "how many High Tides have resolved this turn“, ”what spell did you target with Snapcaster Mage“ or ”did you use the Seascape Aerialist's ability". There are many situations where not being able to obtain information like that not only makes it impossible to play strategically correct, but also technically correct. Even worse, it can sometimes lead to some sort of Schrödinger's game state where a creature could both have flying and not flying until the opponent tries to declare a Roast or Wing Snare targeting it, at which point the controller chooses to make the declaration illegal. It should be obvious that this is not a workable situation.

The situation is completely different from the one with Vampire Nighthawk, because the Deathtouch ability is considered printed on the card and visible to all players. In the Kor Bladewhirl case we have invisible abilities that cannot be determined just by looking at the board. The only sane interpretation of the MTR is that “Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state” includes pretty much everything that affects the game but is invisible, including effects from both spells and abilities.

Marc also raises a good point regarding how specific questions have to be to require an answer. Asking “Did the Kor Bladewhirl trigger and resolve” must be answered truthfully, but it's not clear that “list every trigger currently affecting the game” must be. This is a difficult question that I don't have a good answer to.

“What triggers have resolved?” is an interesting question, but not a very good one, and it's real purpose is, yet again, to trick players into missing their triggers. That's contrary to the purpose of our Missed Trigger philosophy and policy.

Assume the Bladewhirl has resolved, until the player skips past First Striker damage - then it becomes obvious that the trigger was Missed.

In a way, this thread ia akin to the oft-asked questions about “Combat” or “Go”, that usually amount to “how can I trick my opponent with clever wording”. And I hope, by now, y'all know my feelings about that line of questioning…

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

“What triggers have resolved?” is an interesting question, but not a very good one, and it's real purpose is, yet again, to trick players into missing their triggers. That's contrary to the purpose of our Missed Trigger philosophy and policy.

Assume the Bladewhirl has resolved, until the player skips past First Striker damage - then it becomes obvious that the trigger was Missed.

In a way, this thread ia akin to the oft-asked questions about “Combat” or “Go”, that usually amount to “how can I trick my opponent with clever wording”. And I hope, by now, y'all know my feelings about that line of questioning…

d:^D

But “What did trigger?” is not a trick question, is it? i often ask that in a game ^^

And are triggers game actions?

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/ftw/l2-prep/rules-and-policy/missed-triggers/

“If an opponent requires information about the precise timing of a triggered ability or needs details about a game object that may be affected by a resolved triggered ability, that player may need to acknowledge that ability’s existence before its controller does.” This doesn’t mean that Nicole needs to be obvious when she asks about it. For example, since the trigger grants trample also, she could have asked, “Do any of them have trample?”. A “No” answer would mean the trigger was missed.

(emphasis mine).

I don't see asking ‘what triggers have resolved?’ as anything other than a non-obvious way of obtaining information about the ‘precise timing of a triggered ability’.

I think the contrast between the example per the blog is that it is a rather specific question about what is currently going on. Whether or not the creatures have a specific characteristic is a pretty succinct and direct question. It is also a pretty simple answer to provide: either “Yes” or “No.” The controller of the creatures could even be more specific about which creatures for which it is relevant (e.g., only attacking creatures, and not the one creature left back as a blocker).

However, a question along the lines of “What's triggered?” or “What triggers have resolved?” is pretty nonspecific. At least in my mind. While the purpose is still to gather information, it's also a rather broad “fishing net” of information designed to catch anything or everything possible. And while I understand that some may view the purpose of “I'm just trying to find out what the player has missed.”, it can also be used to engineer “Gotcha!” situations as well.

That may not be how some may view it, but I can see the attempt at an angle shot from a clever player with such a question. Or even that too broad a question might be viewed as the opponent trying to get the player to help them play the game. It's one thing to ask “How many High Tides have resolved?”, because it is pretty specific. Same with “What did you target with Snapcaster's trigger?” But broader questions just open up a lot of grey area when it comes to communication, especially when we do not set a very high expectation here.

I would suggest that we not encourage such broadly worded, open-ended questions in a competitive environment.

The default presumption we have per the MIPG, is that a player is presumed to have resolved his triggers unless he demonstrates otherwise. In other words, the player is presumed to NOT have missed his trigger. The MIPG explains what is considered an “otherwise”, such as not choosing a target when required. Absent such an “otherwise”, the default presumption is that the player has properly resolved his trigger. Certainly the opponent can clarify as necessary, especially in instances when he or she needs to make a decision. This may remove the opportunity for the player to demonstrate he or she missed the trigger. But that call out in policy doesn't exist to give the opponent some allowance to get the player to miss the trigger. Yes, it may mean that a question like “Does that creature have first strike?” reminds the player about the trigger… But that's a by-product of the policy.

As such, in the original scenario (which I think we should get back to), I don't see how Kor Bladewhirl's trigger was missed. I believe that Kor Bladewhirl's triggered ability is much closer in nature to the extra turn trigger on Emrakul, the Aeons Torn, and the player just needs to point out that there are two combat damage steps once the game progresses to that point. The opponent should presume that to be true, unless the player fails to acknowledge that there are two combat damage steps; the expectation here is not high in requiring specific technical language, just more functional acknowledgement. If the opponent wants to make certain about creatures first strike, he needs to ask a more specific question.

In summary, I do not believe that AP's answer to NAP's “What did trigger this turn you didn't explicitly point out?” question indicates that Kor Bladewhirl's trigger was missed.

Originally posted by Joaquín Ossandón:

Marc, I think there might be a little misunderstanding about the obligations of each kind of information…If the triggers are derived information (which I don't think they are, but we can discuss that :) ), the player would be able to not answer, answer it completely or answer it partially, as long as there are no lies.

I don't think the triggers are derived (I've corrected the original post), I'd agree they're free information, but the player has asked such a broad question that I don't think they've been specific enough to demand a full response under ‘free information’.

Like Brian and Scott I'm really not happy with the fishing net approach to make an opponent miss a trigger by not mentioning it in response to this question. The IPG specifically states that an opponent may need to remind a player of a trigger to confirm if it's happened.

Based on that, though technically they'd have to give complete answer to a question about a trigger as ‘free’ information I think the question was broad enough not to require that completeness. The extreme end of this line of thought is where Player A asks Player B ‘What game actions have happened this game?’ and we CPV Player B because they miss some free information in their response.

I'm therefore changing my mind to not missed and needs to be declared during the 1st combat damage step (if there is one).