Hi everybody, and welcome back to the Knowledge Pool. We're back to a Silver scneario this week, so L2s should wait until Friday to start chiming in. Enjoy!

You are a floor judge watching Allie and Nemo play in a sealed PPTQ. Allie is attacking Nemo with her Labyrinth Guardian. Before the combat damage step, Nemo casts Final Reward targeting the Labyrinth Guardian and says, “Exile the Guardian before damage.” Allie moves her Labyrinth Guardian card on top of her other exiled cards and then looks at her hand, thinking about which creature to cast after combat. What do you do?

This is a missed trigger - once the Guardian became the target of a spell, Allie should have sacrificed it, which was supposed to happen prior to the resolution of Final Reward. As it's been placed in the exile pile, we've progressed past the stack where the trigger should have been. Normally, we would not intervene in a missed trigger unless we intended to issue a warning. However, Labyrinth Guardian's triggered ability is considered generally detrimental. As such, I would issue a warning for Allie for GPE: Missed Trigger (assuming the normal ‘Assume no cheating’ for KP scenarios).

I cannot tell a lie though; I'm stumbling on the fix. The IPG indicates that we allow the opponent the option to put the trigger on the stack, but the trigger wouldn't do anything since Labyrinth Guardian is already in exile. I wouldn't be opposed to backing up in this specific case with approval, but I'm not sure that policy allows for this.

“Hey I need to stop you both for a second. Can you walk me through what just happened”
*they explain the board state*
“So shouldn't labyrinth guardian be in exile? Why didn't we put it there.”

The intent here is to see why they didn't put it in the GY as per the trigger, and why NAP hasn't pointed it out. There is definitely an advantage to NAP not letting he trigger happen and it going to exile as per the embalm ability on the creature. With it being the missed trigger on AP's side, according to the IPG:

Judges do not intervene in a missed trigger situation unless they intend to issue a Warning or have reason to suspect that the controller is intentionally missing his or her triggered abilities.

While usually we don't give a warning for missed triggers, we do if they're considered detrimental as per this section of the upgrades:

Upgrade: If the triggered ability is usually considered detrimental for the controlling player the penalty is a Warning. The current game state is not a factor in determining this, though symmetrical abilities (such as Howling Mine) may be considered usually detrimental or not depending on who is being affected

Through a double check in detrimental triggers, labyrinth Guardian's “becomes the target” trigger is listed as detrimental on the rules resource guide at this link: https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/mtg/standard-detrimental/

My final verdict for the ruling:
Issue AP GPE - Missed trigger / NAP - FtMGS
As for the remedy, allow the opponent to place the trigger on the stack if they wish, since nobody had made any actions after the faiths reward resolved.

I had edits to my response, but they didn't save.

Labyrinth Guardian is in the incorrect zone as a result of the missed trigger. Further issues stemming from the missed trigger are treated as (not considered as previously worded) GRV, which allow for the backup that I wasn't sure about. The backup in this case is clean and easy - we can back up to the point where the Guardian has been targeted, where the trigger could then be put on the stack.

In regards to NAP, they are not responsible for the AP's triggers, So I don't believe FtMGS is warranted in this case. NAP did not do anything to cause AP to miss their trigger, so resolving their spell correctly isn't a violation (unlike Path to Exile and putting the creature in the graveyard, which is incorrectly resolved).

Edited Bernie Hoelschen (July 12, 2017 02:16:48 PM)

GRV-MT for AP.

We consider Labyrinth Guardian's a generally detrimental trigger. Even though it would be of benefit to remember it in this instance, that cannot be a factor in determining a trigger's detrimental status.

AP gets to decide if we put the ability on the stack. According to current policy, even if NAP adds the trigger to the stack, the Guardian will still be in exile as sacrifice can only occur from the battlefield.

Edited Daniel Woolson (July 12, 2017 11:07:38 AM)

I agree with Daniel Woolson, regarding the trigger and not “considering the board state”, in determination of the trigger's impact..

I will further add, that this particular error does impact my consideration that there is cheating (intentionally missing a generally detrimental trigger). That is, I lean to …no cheating… because it would be better to acknowledge the trigger here.

The person who spoke of GRV allowing for the rewind, while correct in that policy supports such for a GRV when it's better than leaving things as they are… However, we don't tend to stack penalties and fixes. We rather, look to the root cause. It would be a GRV, if player had said/acknowledged the trigger…then put it into exile. This did not happen. In this case, we clearly have a Missed Trigger. That is the root of the problem.

If we assess a penalty here, the fix is to allow the opponent to put it on the stack. Opponent probably wouldn't even AFTER a rewind :) But without a rewind, it's irrelevant (much like resolving a brainstorm into a chalice for 1).

So to me there are only two questions remaining.

One, do I want to intervene here to point out the missed trigger (and give the warning) – note policy does not say I MUST intervene…contrary to say if a player missed lifelink upon doing damage.

I will give my answer after I address the other question still in my mind.

Two, let's consider the statement the NAP asked. “Exile before damage.” I would much prefer this to be a QUESTION. That it is a “command form statement” can seem like being instructed by an opponent to “break the rules”. A player cannot push another through their triggers. Which is why it's a fair question…and a less fair command. While I do not think this rises to the level of cheating…even if it is intentional, there's nothing against the rules that I can see here…

…I do think I would step in! Why? Because there is a non-zero chance the player has another Guardian in their pool. Thus, allowing a legitimate chance for the player to catch their trigger in the future without myself giving that player outside assistance.

Consequently, a warning penalty for missed trigger, fix is to allow opponent to put it on the stack “now” (to no effect), encourage players to play more carefully. Give a time extension if this took more than a minute.

Originally posted by Mark Mason:

The person who spoke of GRV allowing for the rewind, while correct in that policy supports such for a GRV when it's better than leaving things as they are… However, we don't tend to stack penalties and fixes. We rather, look to the root cause. It would be a GRV, if player had said/acknowledged the trigger…then put it into exile. This did not happen. In this case, we clearly have a Missed Trigger. That is the root of the problem.

AP had to sacrifice / put into the graveyard before resolving Final Reward. They failed to do so, which fulfills the requirement regarding the missed trigger in my quoted text to follow. Thus, the way that I'm interpreting the IPG, exiling Labyrinth Guardian to Final Reward is treated as a GRV (but not penalized as such). Since we're treating this portion as a GRV, the backup as I outlined appears to be supported.

Originally posted by IPG 2.1, Missed Triggers:

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.
…
Once any of the above obligations has been fulfilled, further problems are treated as a Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation.

Originally posted by Bernie Hoelschen:

Thus, the way that I'm interpreting the IPG, exiling Labyrinth Guardian to Final Reward is treated as a GRV (but not penalized as such). Since we're treating this portion as a GRV, the backup as I outlined appears to be supported.

That piece of 2.1 is referring to meeting one of those conditions, then not properly following through on the trigger for one reason or another. The AIPG has a good example:

Originally posted by AIPG:

For example, suppose Acetone attacks Neutrino with an unblocked Arbor Elf equipped with Sword of Feast and Famine. During the combat damage step, Acetone untaps his lands but both players forget about Neutrino discarding. Even if this is noticed during the post combat main phase, this must be treated as a Game Rules Violation by either rewinding the game or applying the appropriate partial fix, and not by simply asking Neutrino if she’d like the discard ability to be placed on the stack. It is also a Game Rules Violation if you acknowledge a trigger at the proper time or earlier, and then, because of multiple things on the stack, you forget to resolve it.

In our current Knowledge Pool situation, this would be something like Allie acknowledging her Guardian's trigger, then getting caught up in a messy stack and improperly resolving the trigger afterwards.

Originally posted by Mark Mason:

Two, let's consider the statement the NAP asked. “Exile before damage.” I would much prefer this to be a QUESTION. That it is a “command form statement” can seem like being instructed by an opponent to “break the rules”.

That's a complex distinction made in a game played internationally and often in a second language. Please don't interpret too much the details of what players say, and use the general meaning instead.

- Emilien

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

Originally posted by Mark Mason:

Two, let's consider the statement the NAP asked. “Exile before damage.” I would much prefer this to be a QUESTION. That it is a “command form statement” can seem like being instructed by an opponent to “break the rules”.

That's a complex distinction made in a game played internationally and often in a second language. Please don't interpret too much the details of what players say, and use the general meaning instead.

- Emilien

There is so much wisdom in what you're pointing out to me. So, first, thank you. This may be an area where I struggle a little because I don't see it as “complex” …probably… because my career for so many years dealt with nuance of language.

Having said that, I'm also very sensitive to language issues being a part of a mixed language family. Thank you again!

At this point I'm not 100% sure if we can even consider the (detrimental) trigger missed yet. The trigger hasn't been directly acknowledged, and the physical piece of card board looks like it is in the wrong zone, however no player has acted, overtly passed priority or otherwise progressed the game.

What would happen hypothetically at this point if, before any kind of judge intervention, or any other game action, Allie pointed out the trigger and put the card in the graveyard?

At regular REL I'd just help the players correct the problem right here and now and be done with it, but at competitive REL is it even the right thing to do to jump in and act at this stage?

I *think* at this point I'm likely to continue watching for a time, I would likely act once it's more clear that the trigger has been missed.

At this point Allie would get a warning for missing a detrimental trigger (even though in this instance remembering would help her out.) I'm pretty sure Nemo wouldn't be penalised for failing to remember his opponent's trigger. The Labyrinth Guardian would remain in exile as putting its trigger on the stack at this point doesn't change anything.

Edited James Slater (July 14, 2017 06:39:40 PM)

But, since the trigger will avoid “put the card on exile”, because the triger resolves first… put in a wrong zone = MT for me.

Originally posted by Iván R. Molia:

But, since the trigger will avoid “put the card on exile”, because the triger resolves first… put in a wrong zone = MT for me.

It feels to me like until the game progresses there's nothing substantive to differentiate between the trigger being missed and sloppy sequencing/ sloppy mechanical movement of cards.

To clarify, it is clear that Allie has not yet remembered her detrimental trigger, but I'm still not certain that she has missed her opportunity to remember the trigger. I look forward to the answer.

Edited James Slater (July 15, 2017 04:22:47 PM)

IPG 2.1 MT: The point by which the player needs to demonstrate this awareness depends on the impact that the trigger would have on the game:
Point 2:
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. Note that passing priority, casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been forgotten, as it could still be on the stack.

Move the creature to the exile Means than the spell was resolved.
Since the trigger was over the spell in the stack… skip the trigger and move the creature to the exile must be enought to think than the triger was missed.

Even, the triger have a change in the visible game state (the creature is sacrificated, and put in graveyard), and that action is skiped… and as IPG said: that means it's a MT.

“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. Note that passing priority, casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been forgotten, as it could still be on the stack.”

I don't believe that either player has taken a game action since the trigger should have happened. I may be interpreting the IPG wrong but I feel that there is some ambiguity in the game state here that would lead to me waiting before acting. I don't feel the game would be substantially harmed by this choice, I weigh this against the risk that by acting now I take away the opportunity for Allie to remember her trigger, giving her opponent an advantage by my premature action.

EDIT: wording

Edited James Slater (July 16, 2017 03:48:06 AM)