AP controls Masticore, and has a few cards in their hand.
AP untaps and draws, NAP calls for upkeep trigger.

Before Ravnica Allegiance, AP had to sacrifice Masticore: after Ravnica Allegiance, ability goes on the stack, at the discretion of NAP.

“IPG 2.1 No player may make choices involving objects that would not have been legal choices when the ability should have triggered.”

How can you be sure AP doesn't discard the card they just drew?

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

How can you be sure AP doesn't discard the card they just drew?

We can't, and there isn't a great alternative (although I'm sure we can all imagine a remedy we want to use… please, don't!).

In situations like this, I often remind NAP that it's in their best interest to point out that trigger before AP misses it, and remind them of their responsibilities re: maintaining a legal game state, etc., etc. It doesn't always satisfy them, of course. :p

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (March 17, 2019 02:17:50 PM)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

How can you be sure AP doesn't discard the card they just drew?

We can't, and there isn't a great alternative (although I'm sure we can all imagine a remedy we want to use… please, don't!).

In situations like this, I often remind NAP that it's in their best interest to point out that trigger before AP misses it, and remind them of their responsibilities re: maintaining a legal game state, etc., etc. It doesn't always satisfy them, of course. :p

d:^D

Scott, I am perfectly fine with your answer.

Still, I think there's a great paradigm shift here, and it shouldn't be understated.

- Before Ravnica Allegiance, AP was punished for playing poorly, and they could only blame themself. NAP simply capitalized on AP error. After all, it is AP that chose to play Masticore.

- After Ravnica Allegiance, AP is somewhat helped by their own error. “I discard this basic land I just drew”. (Sure, they get a Warning, but still…)
NAP is unable to catch the error before AP draws. The best course of action for NAP seems to be actively reminding AP that they should discard before drawing. Totally different than before, and tough to swallow for a fair share of players.

(Just a thought I wanted to express).

I've had several players express this same sentiment to me with regards to the change to the missed trigger rules when I explained how they related to pact triggers.

Previously, you miss you pact trigger, by, for example, casting ancient stirrings the turn you were supposed to play for pact, that was pretty definitively a game lose even at Regular REL. Now to achieve the same effect, one has to wait for their opponent to use too much mana before ‘reminding’ them of their trigger, which many of my players said seems “scummy” even as they expressed dissatisfaction at having to “play for their opponent.”

I'm sure as time goes on players will get used to this new state of affairs and the way people play around pacts will change, but I think it's worth noting that there are negative feelings around the change from more competitive players.

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

(Sure, they get a Warning, but still…)

I understand the concern being voiced here, but I do believe this statement is downplaying what the Warning allows us to do here. The player in question can, at most, “get away” with this twice in a tournament. The third time will be a Game Loss. The Warning does serve an important role as well in tracking this, as someone who has done this even twice in a tournament is probably going to have a harder time convincing the Head Judge that this is unintentional. And it's not in their best interest to do it again at any rate past that point.

That being said, I do think that it is a fair and reasonable argument from the side of the opponent that they don't want to have to be responsible for their opponent's triggers. That's not been our policy for some time, and here it can make them feel like we have taken something away from them that made the game more “fair” in their eyes; that now they basically are responsible for ensuring their opponent doesn't get a benefit from missing the trigger in their specific game. Our policy before effectively mitigated any possible advantage they could've gained from their error, in much the same way our HCE policy does now. The line “The opponent’s benefit is in not having to point out triggered abilities” still exists in the philosophy section for Missed Trigger in the IPG, but here it certainly doesn't feel like a benefit.

They're probably less comforted by our ability to assess the situation in aggregate, as that doesn't solve what happened to them. Personally I think the best thing we can do for players expressing frustration with this is listen to them, explain why the policy was changed in this way and how that broader-view approach of penalty tracking can help us catch intentional illegal plays while preserving as best as we can the way the game “should have played out” when it was unintentional.

Edited Jacob Milicic (March 18, 2019 10:47:11 PM)

Originally posted by Joseph Marcia:

Previously, you miss you pact trigger, by, for example, casting Ancient Stirrings the turn you were supposed to play for pact, that was pretty definitively a game lose even at Regular REL.

That is not correct. The recent change to default action Missed Triggers only affects Competitive REL. The remedy for a missed pact trigger at Regular REL is “put the ability on the stack unless you think it would be too disruptive”, and has been that way for many years.