It seems that I somwhat misunderstood about the definition of “detrimental” in MT section.
In wiki, list says all (or almost) transform are *not* detrimental, even if it cause pure power/toughness reduction (like Gatsaf Howler).

I thought 3/3 with intimidate becoming 2/2 is usually considered detrimental for that player. Does't transform consider the characteristics of the other side of that creature?

Originally posted by Kenji Suzuki:

It seems that I somwhat misunderstood about the definition of “detrimental” in MT section.
In wiki, list says all (or almost) transform are *not* detrimental, even if it cause pure power/toughness reduction (like Gatsaf Howler).

I thought 3/3 with intimidate becoming 2/2 is usually considered detrimental for that player. Does't transform consider the characteristics of the other side of that creature?

Missed Trigger Guides project lead, here. You were talking about the Missed Trigger Guides section of the judge wiki, right?

When the team was determining which Innistrad block triggers were detrimental, one of the so-called “guiding principles” we used was an apparent understanding that all transform triggers, even the backwards ones, are non-detrimental. At least some of the project members seemed to recall seeing a listserv post, blog article, or some other missive explaining this. This is why the Innistrad and Dark Ascension guides have these triggers all listed with that nice green cell background to indicate their non-detrimental, warning-not-needed, a-ok status.

Checking for the primary source now, however, I can't find anything like this. It doesn't help that we've all been unsubscribed from DCIJUDGE-L. Whether such a post actually existed is anybody's guess at this point- it's possible that this was just only a word-of-mouth policy all along, presumably one made at a Pro Tour, thus (maybe unintentionally) established a precedent that seems to be well-known at least in the United States.

As it stands now, I honestly don't know if backwards transform triggers should be considered detrimental or not. On the one hand, going from a 3/3 Intimidate to a 2/2 sure seems to fit the definition of “usually detrimental.” On the other hand, I see some value in classifying all triggers that use the same keyword as having the same detrimental status. The latter point was one reason why, for example, Reveillark was listed with a detrimental Evoke-sacrifice trigger in the Modern Masters guide despite the fact that the Evoke cost is actually more than the spell's mana cost.

As frowned-upon as asking for official sources may be, perhaps one would be willing to weigh-in here. The project will be glad to update the guides if it turns out we are wrong.

Thanks.


Abe

Edited Abraham Corson (Aug. 12, 2013 05:18:08 PM)

The typical werewolf that transforms back when two or more spells get played should probably be considered “usually detrimental”. Of course, Mayor of Avabruck isn't even seeing much play now, Daybreak Ranger never quite lived up to the hype, and INN/DKA limited isn't very common at all … so this really only comes up in discussion among judges. (That's where all the best corners are discovered!)

That guy who comes from the Fells? Not usually considered detrimental, even though it may occasionally be bad for its controller, in either direction. Before the public outcry (Humans carrying Blazing Torches?), remember that this is really only a problem if someone is intentionally missing a trigger they don't want to happen - and then, detrimental isn't the concern.

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (Aug. 12, 2013 07:24:29 PM)

I hate to differ with the esteemed Scott Marshall, but I have had plenty of
Mayor of Avabruck appearances in GW Humans. In those cases, the issue I
have to investigate more is not missing the backward transformation, but
missing the initial transformation, as *to that deck*, losing the bonus to
other humans is worse than gaining the bonus to other wolves and werewolves.

Dominick Riesland, aka Rabbitball
Creator of the Cosmversal Grimoire
“As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then
their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to
destroy.”
– Christopher Dawson

OMG, someone on the internet was wrong! :)

Yeah, the Mayor has a place in Standard, for a few more months. And yes, the Mayor side may actually be advantageous at any point - I'll add emphasis to a word in your post, Dominick - INVESTIGATE.

So, that mayor've been an example as bad as this pun…

Thanks for reply.

I want to explain why I posted this topics. At PTQ, we (judges) were talking about Huntmaster of Fells backward transform trigger (when it was missed, warning or not?).
I said it is not detrimental, because (even though that creature become 2/2) it makes tokens.
Other judge said it IS detrimental, because we shouldn't consider any other trigger made by original trigger.
Then, I checked MT guide at wiki. It says all transform are not detrimental.

If Reveillark sacrifice trigger is detrimental, it means we don't consider any trigger made by original trigger. (We consider only sacrifice part and not putting 2 cards into BF part). From this theory, if backward werewolf transform is deterimental, backward transform of Huntmaster also should be detrimental.

So here are two questions.
1) When we determine “detrimental-ity” of transform trigger, should we consider the characteristics of other side of that creature?
2) When resolution of trigger *always* pulls the second trigger of that card, should we consider the characteristics of second trigger when we determine detrimentality? (such as Reveillark , Huntmaster both way)

I though both answer are yes. ( in this case, Gatsaf Howler is detrimental, Huntmaster is not detrimental, Reveillark is not detrimental.)
Any thought?

I think reveillarks evoke trigger is not detrimental. This is because players have to pay 1 extra mana to get it. If you are given the option to pay 1 extra mana to get a trigger, then whatever that trigger is can't be detrimental.

I think the reason Evoke is just always considered detrimental is the fact that the Evoke trigger, in and of itself, only does one thing: makes you sacrifice the creature. In a vacuum, sacrificing a creature is purely detrimental.

Luckily, nobody has ever paid for Reveillark's Evoke cost, then forgotten to sacrifice it, so it's really a moot point. :P

Edited Josh Stansfield (Aug. 13, 2013 08:00:26 AM)

Originally posted by Kenji Suzuki:

1) When we determine “detrimental-ity” of transform trigger, should we consider the characteristics of other side of that creature?
2) When resolution of trigger *always* pulls the second trigger of that card, should we consider the characteristics of second trigger when we determine detrimentality? (such as Reveillark , Huntmaster both way)

A week has passed, and I still want to know answers of these questions.
Is there any chance to know (O) answer for this?

My goal is, explaining Huntmaster backwards transform to other judges, like
“Huntmaster backward transform is (detrimental/not detrimenrtal) because (it become smaller and we don't consider any other trigger/all ”transform it“ is not detrimental/it become smaller but it makes tokens) ”.

Thanks,

Edited Kenji Suzuki (Aug. 20, 2013 09:11:40 AM)

Kenji, I'm not sure there is an (O), but here's my opinion.

1) we consider the total package; for example, Disciple of Bolas is not usually detrimental, because you gain life and draw cards. Yes, you sacrifice a creature, and that's not usually a good thing - but the total package is normally quite good. Similarly, even though you're going from a 4/4 to a 2/2, transforming Ravager into Huntmaster is normally beneficial, overall.

2) I'm not sure I really understand, but I think you're asking if, when evaluating the detrimental nature of one trigger, do we consider other triggers that may fire?

Toby may point out something I'm missing here, but I think that has to be no.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

2) I'm not sure I really understand, but I think you're asking if, when evaluating the detrimental nature of one trigger, do we consider other triggers that may fire?

How else would we evaluate suspend cards? Pardic Dragon isn't obviously detrimental if you don't take into account what happens when the last counter comes off.

Hand-waving & hair-splitting, I think; we can all agree that it's generally better to have fewer Suspend counters than to have more, so Pardic Dragon has a usually detrimental ability. And that card is a bit problematic all by itself, anyway … what else?

P.S. - that “Hand-waving & hair-splitting” refers to my reply, not Sean's question … didn't mean to leave the wrong impression, there.

To be fair, if we want to use oddly-worded cards (e.g., Pardic Dragon) to test each line of policy, then I get to do all the H-W & H-S I want! :D

I don't think we even need to go so far as to say something like Ravager's transform trigger is usually beneficial; just saying it isn't generally detrimental should be enough. So for cards like Huntmaster and Mayor of Avabruck where both sides have unique benefits we can't say that one side is generally worse than the other; hence not detrimental.

Originally posted by Alex Mullins:

I don't think we even need to go so far as to say something like Ravager's transform trigger is usually beneficial; just saying it isn't generally detrimental should be enough. So for cards like Huntmaster and Mayor of Avabruck where both sides have unique benefits we can't say that one side is generally worse than the other; hence not detrimental.

I agree with Alex; focusing too much on a “beneficial versus detrimental” dichotomy is really not the right approach. There is far more “grey” in the range of triggers and how they work, that making a strict binary approach to evaluating the triggered ability is going to lead people astray. “Usually considered detrimental” might even even result in some different judgments on particular triggers, but those should be pretty rare or even exceptional triggers.

Edited Brian Schenck (Aug. 21, 2013 03:03:03 AM)