Cultivator of Blades' triggered ability reads:

Whenever Cultivator of Blades attacks, you may have other attacking creatures get +X/+X until end of turn, where X is Cultivator of Blades's power.

On first glance, this may appear to fall under “triggers that affect the game state in non-visible ways”; however, the trigger also requires the controller a choice upon resolution, so it could also fall under the second category.

Originally posted by IPG 2.1 - Missed Trigger:

• A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution: The controller must take the appropriate physical action or acknowledge the specific trigger before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly taking an action in the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved.
  

• 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.
  

Which one of these would it fall under, and why?

Triggers with a choice - like this example, where “you may” - must be acknowledged on resolution. If you say nothing, it is assumed you chose not to give the bonus to your creatures. (Yes, even though that's an unlikely choice.)

d:^D

Just to clarify: this line from the IPG still applies to Cultivator, right?

“a player demonstrating awareness of an optional trigger with no visible effect is assumed to have made the affirmative choice unless the opponent responds.”

Yes.

It just mean that by saying “Attack with those creatures. Triggers of Cultivator” we assume that even if you don't say anything as the trigger resolve, the others attacking creature will get +X/+X if the opponent didn't responds to the trigger.

Eli - yep, in this (interesting & unusual) wording, you just have to acknowledge that the trigger exists. Since the choice to have your attacking creatures get +X/+X doesn't require a physical action or otherwise chane the visible game state, there's nothing needed beyond communication. As Pascal said, that can be acknowledged when it triggers; it can also be acknowledged as it resolves.

I expect we'll get some number of “I said ‘trigger’!” … “no, you didn't!” exchanges between players; we just get to sort out what we believe really happened - like any other miscommunication.

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (Oct. 8, 2016 07:56:00 PM)

If player A controls a 1/1 Cultivator and goes by:

A: “Attack with the 3/3 and the Cultivator. Triggers of Cultivator.”
N: “I'll answer giving her -4/-0. Resolves?”
A: “Yeah.”
N: “Ok, triggers resolves.”
A: “Whatever. You take four.”
N: “Nope, your creatures get -3/-3.”

Would N be right on assuming that, since A said nothing, she let the trigger give -3/-3 to her creatures?

No, N is not right to assume anything. :p

d:^D

The point that pivots us away from assuming in the affirmative is the end of the quote from the ipg.

““a player demonstrating awareness of an optional trigger with no visible effect is assumed to have made the affirmative choice unless the opponent responds.””

The opponent sure has responded, so assuming that it's affirmative is not correct.

This is very similar to the scenario I posted yesterday. Sorry, I didn´t see this one when scrolling down.
http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/30585/

Changing Yurick¡'s scenario a little bit….
If player A controls a 1/1 Cultivator and goes by:

A: “Attack with the 3/3 and the Cultivator. Triggers of Cultivator.”
N: “I'll answer with lightning bolt targeting you. Resolves?”
A: “Yeah.”
N: “Ok, triggers resolves.”
A: “Whatever. You take five”
N: “Nope, you didn´t make a choice on resolution.”

Would the 3/3 get +1/+1 even if N responded? (the response has nothing to do with the cratures).
Would the 3/3 continue being a 3/3 because N responded and A didn´t announce his/her choice?

Thanks.

Javier, it seems fairly clear that - in this case! - A has chosen to give his creatures the bonus. Let's not encourage “rules lawyers” by ruling otherwise, m'kay?

d:^D

The IPG says, basically:

Originally posted by The IPG:

If the opponent does not respond, assume that the player chose “yes”.

Do not assume that the inverse is true:

Not A Real Quote
If the opponent responds, assume that the player chose “no”.

All the IPG says is that we cannot assume what AP has chosen if the opponent has responded, it does not say that the trigger has been missed. (The trigger is only missed if no one demonstrates awareness of it at all!)

Instead, the absence of a line in the IPG means you may need to investigate this case a bit further - what was communicated? “You take five” sounds like an acknowledgement of the trigger and an announcement of the choice as the trigger was resolving, and so does “you take four” in Yurick's case. In both cases, AP is saying this right after NAP informs him that the trigger is resolving - which is the correct time to do so. And of course, if NAP or a Judge ever needs to know what AP chose, all we need to do is ask him.