Originally posted by Russell Gray:

The JAR uses non-technical language because it's meant to be understood by people who are familiar with the game, but not really judges. It doesn't have room to list every exception to every rule, but “may” and “unless” are pretty clearly in the same category of “triggers that you can't go back for if you forget about them”. It doesn't really make sense to use a quote from the JAR to justify treating similar triggers differently based on if it literally contains that specific word.

Isn't JAR specifically written for judges, but just written in a way that even newer judges and players/TOs/people just acting as judges can understand it as well? It is supposed to be a guideline for judges, and it doesn't have to list exceptions because we can always choose to make exceptions ourselves, but they must be exceptions that fixes the game state in a farier/more intuitive way, which I don't think this fix does. If 117.12.a was meant to be as an errata, and not just “these cards should be resolved in the same way”, it would have been really easy to state “if the ability includes words such as unless or may” if the point is to have it broader. You shouldn't need to know that much about the rules to use JAR to fix situations if needed, I guess that is kind of the point of the document.

As you say, JAR is supposed to be understandable for players and TOs as well, and to make it simpler to judge at regular rel, and that isn't the case if judges need to change the meaning of JAR (which is super clear on that trigger with the word may directly written on them should be the only triggers to automatically “skip”). Note that 117.12.a doesn't state that all instances of unless should be read as if may was written on it instead, just that those two specific examples should be handled in the same way. It is just a guide on how to resolve things, not a translation.

And I don't agree with the kind of triggers being similar, these triggers are really different. The section in JAR seem to have been written for all the “At the beginning of your upkeep, you may gain 1 life” kind of triggers, which are fundamentally different from all the ones mentioned in 117.12a. They aren't that big of a deal to forget anyway. The exact ones written in 117.12a might be similar, but if we wanted to do something with that small inconsitency, I would rather judge all of those as if there were no may, rather than the other way around. As mentioned previously in this thread, there is a difference between not doing something you had a choice of doing and not, and not deciding between two choices.

Originally posted by Russell Gray:

Anyone who is bringing Pacts to FNM is going to be familiar with the concept that if you forget about it, you lose the game. And they played it knowing that they had to remember it next turn or they'd lose. It might cause a feel-bad moment in the sense of slapping one's head “oh no why did I do that?!”. But it's not going to create a feel-bad moment in the sense that a player feels judges or other players are picking on them.

I don't think all players see pacts this way, even though people who play at competetive REL usually do. The point with the card is just that you have to pay if you can, but since we at competetive REL cannot do backups before handling missed triggers, we need to have a strict fix at competetive REL. But how is this consistent with what we try to achieve at Regular REL? As long as the fix is fair (i.e. that they player doesn't get too much of an advantage by forgetting it), why do we have to adapt the “gotcha”-moment from competetive REL? If a player just untaps and says “attack for win, you die” when he easily could have paid for the pact trigger, and the judge rule that he loses instead, I can garantee that it creates feel-bad moments. And to rule something just because “some players like/except the gotcha-moment” seems wrong for regular REL. He would still have to pay to survive, we won't give any advatages by forgetting the trigger, why then should we have this one case where forgetting a trigger at FNM cost you the game, when everything else is supposed to be friendly and fun?

Originally posted by Russell Gray:

I don't see the default action as being overly harsh. Anyone who is bringing Pacts to FNM is going to be familiar with the concept that if you forget about it, you lose the game. And they played it knowing that they had to remember it next turn or they'd lose.

Losing the game is about the harshest thing that can happen to a player, at least until they print a Demon that disqualifies you from the tournament as an additional cost.

The drawback of the Pacts isn't about memory, it's about spending more resources in the future in exchange for playing them for free now, and about risking that something might keep you from paying for them in the future (for example, having someone Tectonic Edge your last black source).

At Regular REL, if the Pact is noticed late, I'd put it on the stack then - most likely, this will be during the draw step and the player will pay for it and the game will continue.

Letting someone who missed a pact go ahead and pay whenever they feel like it IS going to create feel bad moments though. You've simply shifted it from AP to NAP. AP at least knew he slipped up. NAP is going to get the sense that people are changing the rules on him so that AP can gain an advantage.

I also don't agree with the idea that we can skip “may” triggers because they are tiny anyway. There are plenty of optional triggers which make significant changes to the game. And even when they are tiny, that isn't why they are treated differently. They're treated differently because it keeps everything fun and fair for everyone.

The real difference between may triggers and unless triggers is this: May triggers allow you to take an action to gain a benefit. Unless triggers allow you to take an action to prevent some harm. Sometimes that action is a cost to pay, sometimes it is just to remember to do it. If players can pay the cost of remembering to do it at any time, it feels unfair to the other player, and THAT is why the JAR lists “may” triggers as an exception and why I feel like they should be treated the same way.

(P.S. It's not super important, but the JAR was written as a resource for TOs, because many regular rel events won't even have a judge)

Marit, I'm going to add my +1 to both of your posts - well said, and, in my opinion, quite correct.

The JAR was first conceived and created for newer L1s, and for L0s, that run casual events in their local store. While that includes TOs (store owners/employees), they weren't really the focus of that document - just the beneficiaries of another judge document.

In the original example, with Lathnu Hellion, the first thing I'd do is look at the board, to see if I should be suspicious about this trigger being missed. Perhaps that's a relic of my Comp/Pro REL background, but players do sketchy things at any REL, even at the kitchen table. I might even ask some questions to investigate a bit.

However, if it seems that it was just an honest mistake, I'll point out “you didn't pay for your Hellion”; I suspect that the majority of players would then sigh, and bin their Hellion, acknowledging the consequences of their mistake. I know that some opponents would then say “no, wait - Judge, can't he just pay it now?”, because they want the game to continue fairly organically. And, I know that some players would look at me and say “now what?”, or even “can I just pay now?”. And in those cases, I'd put on my judge hat, and - per the JAR - put that trigger on the stack.

Same for a missed Pact - I recall an ‘O’fficial answer, some years back, about that very question.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

if it seems that it was just an honest mistake, I'll point out “you didn't pay for your Hellion”; I suspect that the majority of players would then sigh, and bin their Hellion, acknowledging the consequences of their mistake.

…and then you'd let that happen and hope it's not going to bite us in the posterior? Because if this player ever has an opponent that makes the same mistake but asks a judge what to do, you would be “the other judge” from Ye Olde “but the other judge said…” story.

I'm all for “whatever makes both players happy” but this risks making one player very unhappy down the line. If there's an official fix, shouldn't we step in and say “this is the official fix”?

Jochem, I'm not sure…
(a) what ‘O’fficial fix you think I'm disagreeing with, or deviating from, nor
(b) why this thread needed to be dredged back up again, after nearly four months?! O_O

As for point A, the only important one - remember, this is a Regular REL thread. The IPG does NOT apply at Regular REL; instead, we use the document “Judging at Regular REL”, and I'm fairly certain that what I said is in complete compliance with that document.

d:^D

I'm all for “whatever makes both players happy” but this risks making one player very unhappy down the line. If there's an official fix, shouldn't we step in and say “this is the official fix”?

Originally posted by JAR:

If you feel that the suggested remedy is not well adapted to your particular situation and you can suggest a more appropriate fix which is accepted by both players, apply that fix instead.

The JAR (unlike the IPG) is written with more flexibility for the judges and players to arrive at what everyone believes to be a “fair” gamestate. In the case where a judge points out a problem and both players immediately agree on a fix that they consider fair, why should we insist on the “official” fix? Just get them back to playing Magic.

I think in general judges value consistency (which is important at high-level events) much more than players, who value “fairness.” If a judge is interjecting to replace a fix that both players consider fair to instead enact one that seems less fair, the players are going to be unhappy about it (one more so than the other, for sure, but I have seen players appeal a ruling in their favor on the grounds that the ruling wasn't fair to their opponent).