This is the second part of my report from the monthly judgemeeting in Frankfurt.
The first part can be found here.

Again, we assume Competitive REL for all cases.

6. Policy - Ulvenwald Mysteries
7. Policy - No dice rolls
8. Policy - Double Fetch




6. Policy - Ulvenwald Mysteries
Sandor controls Ulvenwald Mysteries and a clue token. He activates the Clue token and draws a card. Then he reaches to his pile of tokens and puts a 1/1 white Human Soldier token onto the battlefield. His opponent Gregory claims Sandor missed the opportunity and calls for a judge.

This situation split us into two sides basically:
a)

Give him the token.
He didn't forget it, he just carried out the stack in a wrong order. “Out-of-Order-Sequencing”.

b)

Do not give himt he token. He made a game action (drawing a card) that indicates the game progressed past the point of the trigger.

There is not much else to say about a). It is likely he indeed didn't forget. He wants the token regardless what he draws. But applying a) causes many problems, say the proponents of “missed trigger”: Maybe the opponent drew a card that reminded him of the Ulvenwald Mysteries trigger. What if Gregor has a Dual Shot and Sandor drew a pumpspell like Strengthen the Arms?

Since we were split 50:50 on this case, i'd love to hear your opinions on this situation, if possible with backup from the rules and policy documents

7. Policy - No dice rolled
Robert wins the die roll against Walder and announces he'll play first. Both players draw their opening hands, finish mulliganing and Walder starts to play the game, playing a land. The game goes on for some turns, then when players want to figure out whether a player played a land or not, they find out that Walder should not have started. Rob was “stolen” the right to play first, even if it was unintentionally.

We condenses the situation and figured it's just a regular Game Rule Violation. Either rewind to the very start of the game, or keep the game as it is.




8. Policy - Double Fetch

Theon activates his Flooded Strand. He grabs his library and puts a Tundra onto the battlefield and shuffles his library. He uses Tundra for something, the game goes on. In his next untap step, he untaps all his lands, and to see what lands he has available better, starts to sort them. At this point, it is noticed an Underground Sea is stuck to Tundra. Appareantly, he fetched “both”.

This is a Game Rule Violation. We agree on this. The default is to rewind the game or keep it as it is. But is the partial fix suggested in the IPG applicable here as well?

IPG 2.5 GPE-GRV Additional Remedy
If an object is in an incorrect zone either due to a required zone change being missed or due to being put into the wrong zone during a zone change , the identity of the object was known to all players, and it can be moved with only minor disruption to the state of the game, put the object in the correct zone.

The Underground Sea was moved “during a zonechange”, the identity of the object is clear to all players, and it can be moved with only minor disruption. Underground Sea wasn't used for mana. No game choices were made based on the existance of said Underground Sea. Both players assumed only Tundra was fetched with the Flooded Strand. They played the game as though Underground Sea.

Yeah, we can probably apply the partial fix here! Do you have doubts?



I am interested if someone could break the Ulvenwald Mysteries situation up. Right now, we're not on the same page, but there's always this thing “consistency” we try to achieve.

The first part can be found here, with these topics discussed:

1. Rules - Rabid Bite vs. Murderous Redcap
2. Rules - Zoetic Cavern vs. Grave Peril

3. Policy - 2 Werewolves 1 Trigger
4. Policy - Madness
5. Policy - Missing Investigations

Thank you for reading. If you're interested in more reports of this kind, leave a comment!

About Unvelwald Misteries case, times ago in the Italian community we discussed basically the same situation. i.e.

AP casts Stratus Walk on his Fabled Hero. He draws, then puts the +1/+1 counter. Is he allowed to do so?

The consensus answer has been: yes, he is allowed.

The reasoning behind this decision is:

"An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence."

Is it reasonable to think that prematurely seeing the card affects AP decision to put the +1/+1 counter? No, it isn't.
Out-of-Order sequencing, no second thoughts.

Edited Francesco Scialpi (June 6, 2016 12:19:26 PM)

I tend to agree with Francesco's reasoning.

“His opponent Gregory claims Sandor missed the opportunity and calls for a judge.” I would ask the opponent if he has a response to the trigger, before the card is drawn. If he does, we may have to do a rewind - but more likely, he just wants to rules-lawyer his opponent into missing something. And, once that motive becomes obvious, I'll simply tell him “it's obvious that nothing was forgotten, and the precise order of things isn't important in this case; please stop being a jerk.” (I *might* not use those exact words - LOL!)

* * *

On the “double fetch” - don't overthink this. What went wrong is quite obvious, just fix it (shuffle the U. Sea back) and move along.

d:^D

I don't understand why it isn't a missed trigger.
When you crack the clue the stack will be token on top then draw. By drawing a card without any prior indication of your intent to get a soldier this is text book missed trigger, no?
Scott, you've used the term forgotten, but my understanding was, you can forget triggers but not miss them, just as you can remember triggers but still miss them.
If the player was reaching for a soldier when they drew that's fine, but if they've resolved the draw before any move to get a soldier, I'd be ruling missed trigger.
________________________________
From: Scott Marshall <forum-27668-498b@apps.magicjudges.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 7 June 2016 4:18:16 AM
To: sean_crain14@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Ulvenwald Mysteries missed trigger (Competitive REL)


I tend to agree with Francesco's reasoning.

“His opponent Gregory claims Sandor missed the opportunity and calls for a judge.” I would ask the opponent if he has a response to the trigger, before the card is drawn. If he does, we may have to do a rewind - but more likely, he just wants to rules-lawyer his opponent into missing something. And, once that motive becomes obvious, I'll simply tell him “it's obvious that nothing was forgotten, and the precise order of things isn't important in this case; please stop being a jerk.” (I *might* not use those exact words - LOL!)

* * *

On the “double fetch” - don't overthink this. What went wrong is quite obvious, just fix it (shuffle the U. Sea back) and move along.

d:^D

—————————
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/177918/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/27668/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/27668/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/

Originally posted by Sean Crain:

I don't understand why it isn't a missed trigger.
When you crack the clue the stack will be token on top then draw. By drawing a card without any prior indication of your intent to get a soldier this is text book missed trigger, no?
Scott, you've used the term forgotten, but my understanding was, you can forget triggers but not miss them, just as you can remember triggers but still miss them.
If the player was reaching for a soldier when they drew that's fine, but if they've resolved the draw before any move to get a soldier, I'd be ruling missed trigger.

While that may be true from a purely technical viewpoint, keep in mind that MIPG 2.1 has this to say in the “Philosophy”…

Players may not cause triggered abilities controlled by an opponent to be missed by taking game actions or otherwise prematurely advancing the game. During an opponent’s turn, if a trigger’s controller demonstrates awareness of the trigger before they take an active role (such as taking an action or explicitly passing priority), the trigger is remembered. The Out-of-Order Sequencing rules (MTR section 4.3) may also be applicable, especially as they relate to batches of actions or resolving items on the stack in an improper order.

…and while the player should draw the card after putting the 1/1 Soldier creature token on the battlefield, this also qualifies as “resolving items on the stack in an improper order”. Or one of the general hallmarks of OoOS. That is, the technical order in which actions were performed is incorrect, but we still get to a correct game state.

If there was no significant pause between the card draw and the 1/1 Soldier creature token, or it was otherwise clear the player was physically performing the actions in a close sequence, I see no reason to rule the trigger as being missed. MTR 4.3 can apply to this situation.

Players may not cause triggered abilities controlled by an opponent to be missed by taking game actions or otherwise prematurely advancing the game. During an opponent’s turn, if a trigger’s controller demonstrates awareness of the trigger before they take an active role (such as taking an action or explicitly passing priority), the trigger is remembered. The Out-of-Order Sequencing rules (MTR section 4.3) may also be applicable, especially as they relate to batches of actions or resolving items on the stack in an improper order.


I don't see how this applies. The opponent has not done anything to rush the clue cracker or force him to miss anything, (other than playing to the letter of the IPG) and in fact the line I've emboldened almost contradicts the point you're trying to make. He took an action by drawing his card, which also indicates a priority pass (how else will this all be resolving) and that to me says he missed his trigger.

I also don't feel comfortable applying OoOS to triggers, when the IPG has a very clear definition of when a trigger is missed, why are we trying to protect players with OoOS?

If we could do this, almost 50% of missed trigger calls I take at Comp REL would protect the player who is playing sloppy, and I know I'd have successfully flipped my Things in the Ice more often XD

After re-reading MTR 4.3 I've noticed it doesn't specifically exclude missed triggers, but nor does it use one as an example and so I'm not sold yet for the reasons I've mentioned.

________________________________

Edited Sean Crain (June 6, 2016 08:10:03 PM)

Sean, there are three sentences that Brian quoted, and he underlined the part that explains why OoOS can (and does!) apply here. Don't stop reading after the sentence you emboldened; the next sentence matters, too.

d:^D

Ok, I'll acquiesce here, but I feel maybe some line drawing needs to be done, or perhaps I've just been too harsh in my missed trigger verdicts.

To give an example where maybe I was wrong then…

If I cast World Breaker with a Sanctum of Ugin in play- The cast a creature with CMC >/= 7 search for a thing.

If I resolve Sanctum then choose a target, you'd allow that?

When, by the IPG, you should choose a target before passing priority/taking an action? I said at the time it'd be missed.

Edited Sean Crain (June 6, 2016 10:00:30 PM)

Short Version:
CR is for playing the game correctly.
MTR is for playing in tournaments correctly.
IPG is for what to do when someone has failed items #1 or #2.
Missed Trigger requires some due diligence to verify versus OoOS.
Player gets both triggers and a friendly reminder to be careful.

Long Version:

Originally posted by Sean Crain:

Ok, I'll acquiesce here, but I feel maybe some line drawing needs to be done, or perhaps I've just been too harsh in my missed trigger verdicts.

Good. In all likelihood, you probably have been too harsh. The last two decades of developing philosophy around playing and judging Magic has been largely based on removing the “GOTCHA!!!” out of the game.

Originally posted by Sean Crain:

To give an example where maybe I was wrong then…

If I cast World Breaker with a Sanctum of Ugin in play- The cast a creature with CMC >/= 7 search for a thing.

If I resolve Sanctum then choose a target, you'd allow that?

When, by the IPG, you should choose a target before passing priority/taking an action? I said at the time it'd be missed.

First things first, be really careful when you want to be pedantic about the rules. It looks bad for the people we're servicing, and it leads into behaviors that are detrimental to the overall experience of playing the game. After all, if we want to play Magic: The Gotcha, then I'd ask why you brought up the IPG. If we're playing the pedantic game, then I'd mention 601.2c–d. Someone at that point would say 601.2c–d is about playing spells. Then I'd have to revise my statement to say 603.3d since that's the rule about targets and triggers which in turn specifically references 601.2c–d. But weren't we talking about the IPG? Oh, that's right, playing the game correctly is all in the Comprehensive Rules, not the IPG. The IPG is only for when someone doesn't play correctly, so if we're quoting a thing about how to play it right, we're quoting CR.

Yeah, being pedantic leads to stuff like that. Don't be like that.

Now, let's consider the example Sean gave:
Player casts World Breaker with a Sanctum of Ugin on the battlefield.
If Player resolves the Sanctum trigger and then chooses a World Breaker target, you'd allow that?

I think we can all agree that there's a mistake here (not choosing the World Breaker target before resolving either trigger). Both triggers trigger on the same event–casting the World Breaker, so there's no cast-vs-enters trigger debate. It sure seems like a missed trigger, but let's review IPG 2.1 first. The very first item called out is, “A triggered ability that requires its controller to choose targets (other than ‘target opponent’), modes, or other choices made when the ability is put onto the stack: The controller must announce those choices before they next pass priority.” That seems very clear, but the last line in the Philosophy section is “The Out-of-Order Sequencing rules (MTR section 4.3) may also be applicable, especially as they relate to batches of actions or resolving items on the stack in an improper order.”

In other words, we're not done yet. At the kitchen table, this scenario is handled with a hand wave and maybe a grumble, but tournament Magic has rules to settle these things, and those rules are where the MTR comes in. MTR 4.3 starts with, “Due to the complexity of accurately representing a game of Magic, it is acceptable for players to engage in a block of actions that, while technically in an incorrect order, arrive at a legal and clearly understood game state once they are complete.” Was the Sanctum / World Breaker scenario a “block of actions?” As presented, there's nothing saying there was separation, and we've already covered the fact the trigger event is the same for both. MTR 4.3 goes on to say, “In general, any substantial pause at the end of a completed batch is an indication that all actions have been taken, the sequence is complete and the game has moved to the appropriate point at the end of the sequence.”

With no physical actions, no verbal indications, and no substantial pause, and especially with a single trigger event for both abilities, then this is a block of actions. Before anyone starts to debate how much time Player took to search the library and whether there was some sort of “substantial pause” during the search, please see above section on being pedantic. In short, yes, Player should be allowed to resolve both triggers (allowing Opponent to respond as appropriate, if desired) and also have a polite reminder to be more careful to avoid OoOS since it can easily lead to Missed Triggers and general sadness.

Thanks John, I think you've covered the missing links between my lines of thinking and the responses from Uncle Scott and Brian.
I think it may be worth noting this might be a huge opportunity for inconsistencies to pop up, as I know a lot of judges err on the side of how I have been approaching Missed Triggers and I know some local(ish)
angle shooters that are going to dislike this approach I'm now likely to adopt (not that their opinions particularly matter in this regard)

Just a side note, the reason why triggers are so often part of an Out-of-Order Sequence is directly based in the nature of triggers themselves. They are invisible, so players need to communicate about them quite a lot or a confusion may occur (and human beings are generally lazy and do not want to communicate too much). And triggers are available on the stack with its processing of Last In - First Out, which is kind of unintuitive for the common human thinking.

So in reality players want to perform their actions as quick as possible and without excessive communication. While they try to point point out their triggers which are based on another action, it is natural to perform those actions/triggers in the order of appearance and not in the LIFO order.

Please, bear in mind that our brains work like that and intervene in such situations only if information has been gained prematurely in the particular sequence of actions.

What could help some players would be to have some kind of physical objects (tokens) representing their triggers on the stack. I use such technique with new players to teach them how stack works. It may be that WotC will someday include “trigger tokens” in booster packs :-D

Originally posted by Sean Crain:

I think you've covered the missing links between my lines of thinking

The complete line of thinking requires inferences. While the inferences are logical, it does take some work to get there, so I'm not at all surprise you or other would miss a step–especially since the complete path requires all three major rules documents.

Originally posted by Sean Crain:

I know some local(ish) angle shooters that are going to dislike this approach I'm now likely to adopt

That's likely to happen. There is a class of player who want to twist the rules to fit their needs. “Angle shooter” and “rules lawyer” are reasonable names since “boot licker” and “terrible human being” don't make for a welcoming environment. You might not be surprised to find I have a low tolerance for these players/ ;-) (I can't call angle shooters ASs for short, I suppose.) They are, however, a part of the community, so we have some duty to address their particular dysfunctions. Actually, much of the mental gymnastics judges have to perform is related to shutting down all the angles angle shooters try to shoot.

It turns out, there are two things that are most effective at addressing rules lawyers / angle shooters.
1) Know the rules better than they do.*
2) Be consistent–with yourself and with others (this forum will help with the “others” part).
* If you're stuck on a thing where the rules lawyers are winning, ask for help from other judges.

Chances are the rules lawyers are missing some point or have a flaw in their thinking, and the judge community can help you spot the flaw. And should the rules lawyers win, then perhaps we need to look at the rules and fix them. Ever wondered why we don't mandate a specific number of shuffles to randomize a deck? Rules lawyers would give a halfhearted stab at the bare minimum number and call it good, so we had to change that to judge discretion.

The longer a judge judges, the more they have to juggle different rules and rules philosophies. One of the things that is super helpful when figuring out why a thing is that way is knowing what it was like before. New judges might look at the OoOS examples and think they're obvious, simple things, but if for judges who were around at the time, they remember how much of a fight each of those things caused in the community. That history helps with the train of thought that runs through today.

Fun Fact!: For a time, players were required to announce a spell and then tap mana. If a player tapped mana first and then announced the spell, they were considered separate actions–no matter how short to time between the two steps was. Thus, if the spell was illegal for some reason, {W}{3} for Wrath of God, then the player rewound only the spell and was stuck with tapped lands and floating mana that would cause mana burn. Oh, and tapping lands wasn't reversible once a player's hand came off the land.

Yeah, that was not a pleasant world to play or judge in.

On the double fetch: I don't think the Underground Sea was ever a game
object moved to the battlefield. I wouldn't call anything a partial fix; I
would just shuffle it back in, no infraction.

2016-06-07 13:12 GMT-04:00 John Carter <