Hi everyone, new judge here. I'm reading up on the IPG in hopes of getting accepting onto the staff at a local PTQ, and I came across a part of the rules that I'm not sure how to approach.

The IPG says this about missed triggers:

The point by which the player needs to demonstrate this awareness depends on the impact that the trigger would have on the game:

A triggered ability that changes the rules of the game: The controller must prevent an opponent from taking any resulting illegal action

Here are a few situations where that rule could be relevant:

Antoine attacks Norbert with Xantid Swarm. Antoine and Norbert both agree to move to Antoine's second main phase, and then to Antoine's end step. Norbert announced Thirst for Knowledge; Antoine informs him that this play is illegal, because Norbert can't cast spells this turn.

Alice casts Lightning Helix targeting Natasha's Dark Confidant, and Natasha announces that she has no responses. Alice says, “kill your Bob, I go from 14 to 17” and starts writing on her life pad. Natasha says, "wait, didn't I hit you with Stigma Lasher earlier this game?" and calls a judge. The judge determines that 1) a Stigma Lasher in the graveyard did indeed deal two damage to Alice, and 2) this is the first time that Alice tried to gain life this game, so Natasha had not missed any previous visible effects of Lasher's trigger.

My confusion is this: I don't see anything in the section on GPE-GRV that contains an exception for an action made illegal by an unannounced trigger. It seems obvious to me that it's not fair to either Norbert or Alice to give them a any sort of penalty. But both players attempted an illegal action, and I don't see anything in IPG that explicitly exempts this type of error from GPE-GRV.

Did either Norbert or Alice commit an infraction?

Technically, yes, infractions were committed. While it may seem draconian to hand out Warnings in these cases, it is important to remind players that it's just a Warning - i.e., a reminder to play correctly.

Note that, even if Norbert or Alice knew about the triggers and knew they were committing an infraction IF THE TRIGGER WAS REMEMBERED, they are not Cheating. You don't have to help your opponents remember their triggers, and you can hope they forgot. (i.e., “I had hoped he forgot” is a valid “defense” for those infractions.)

Note also that this will probably never come to our attention; the players will acknowledge the trigger at that point, and carry on as if nothing had happened.

Another note - if I'm not mistaken, we generally only leap in to give GRV infractions once the player has committed to a play. If a players makes an illegal play but the players immediately realize that it is illegal, we don't need to intervene. For instance, if a player turned his whole team sideways, and goes “oops oh wait I cast that one this turn” and pulls that creature back, we need not GRV as the player hasn't actually committed to the illegal play.

Originally posted by Colleen Nelson:

If a players makes an illegal play but the players immediately realize that it is illegal, we don't need to intervene.

That is what I am wondering about the second scenario. Since A started writing down the life change but N effectively says no due to the Lasher, once we get there - if both players have since agreed that the Lasher did hit, is there really a need for even a Warning?

I guess what I am saying is that by the time we show up and the situation is resolved, would we still implement a warning - even though warnings, by their nature are not that big of a deal? (in this matter, obviously if it were something bigger - we would have to)

Giving Warnings for that kind of infractions doesn't comply with the philosophy very well.

If I know all the rules and policy really well, the correct and legal play is to try and break the rule since I can never be sure whether the trigger has resolved or not. If a judge will give me a warning every time a make the best play possible, I wont go very far.

Missed triggers were formed this way that give a more careful player an advantage and releases players from taking care of opponent's triggers. I can never be sure that a trigger that set new rules has resolved or not other than try to break that rule and see if my opponent remembered. If I would prior to taking an “illegal action” ask my opponent whether he resolved the trigger I could never use the advantage that Missed trigger policy is supposed to bring, since what I'm doing is reminding my opponent of his triggers.

I see 2 solutions here - either we don't give out warnings for those kind of triggers or we always assume those triggers resolved. I think the penalty shouldn't depend on whether my opponent remembered his trigger or not (like it does in those cases or at least in the first).

Edited Jernej Lipovec (Jan. 20, 2014 12:03:42 PM)

You're misunderstanding the “advantage” given to you by the missed trigger
policy. If you don't assume that the trigger has triggered, you're risking
the GRV.


2014/1/20 Jernej Lipovec <forum-8008-c305@apps.magicjudges.org>

I agree with Jernej - whether or not a player gets a penalty should not be dependent upon how the opponent reacts to them. This is the philosophy that underlies the “Preceded by a GRV” exception for the DEC infraction, as an example. As a general rule we should never ever give a player the power to determine whether or not another player gets an infraction (in my humble opinion, of course).

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

once we get there

Why are we even there? As I already mentioned, this is just going to be a case where the player says “no, because of {insert relevant Trigger that I didn't Miss}”. We'll never know about it - or hundreds of other (technically, according to a strict interpretation) infractions.

If judges are running around the room looking for these sorts of infractions to enforce, they've missed the point. More than a few points, even. What Colleen says does a great job of encapsulating the spirit of judging - even if I can't provide exact quotes from Policy to support that.

Why doesn't Policy say to ignore all those “trivial” infractions? What if they aren't really trivial? What if Slim Shady is always making these little mistakes, knowing that he'll get away with some of them, and even the ones that are caught are just waved off as inconsequential? It's as dangerous as Dr. Venkman crossing the streams!

Recording a Warning helps honest players remember to play tighter … and serves to discourage Slim Shady, too.

Also, Dominik is correct, Jernej.

IPG
The opponent’s benefit is in not having to point out triggered abilities

- that's it. The opponent doesn't have to play the game for you, and help you remember your own triggers; that was a HUGE issue, esp. at the highest levels of play, with a previous incarnation of the Missed Trigger rules.

Hopefully, all that helps a bit?

And, it never hurts to (repetitively) plug Toby's blog post on Missed Triggers.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Why are we even there?

In the above scenario, the player had called the Judge - so I was going with that.

So, if I've understood this correctly, you would still issue the Warning for this particular incident?

On a completely side note: Great Ghostbusters reference - didn't think I'd get to see those sort of things here.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

So, if I've understood this correctly, you would still issue the Warning

Keep in mind that the visibility that goes with my role requires a REALLY good reason before I deviate.

However, the original post didn't mention anything about a judge being called - just the question “{is there} an infraction?” Yep, there is an infraction.

But again - we'll probably never know about it.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Keep in mind that the visibility that goes with my role requires a REALLY good reason before I deviate

That's fair.

We'll the crucial quote from the IPG is: “Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately apparent.” with which your point of view is more clear now.

Is it also infraction if opponent forgets about it? Do we stop the game if we see it happen (according to the IPG, I don't believe so)? If we don't stop the game that means that we're giving out a penalty directly based on whether a player has shown awareness of his trigger or not which don't seem fair in my opinion.

Edit: The fact is that to check whether that kind of trigger is remembered or not there is no other way than to try and break out that rule. If that is so, do we really need to be penalized for that?

Edited Jernej Lipovec (Jan. 20, 2014 01:02:05 PM)

Originally posted by Jernej Lipovec:

Is it also infraction if opponent forgets about it?

Nope - at least, not in these examples (i.e., they are not “usually detrimental”).

Originally posted by Jernej Lipovec:

Do we stop the game if we see it happen

Absolutely not.

IPG
Judges should 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.

Since these aren't detrimental, we do nothing.

I can't really address your last sentence, because it suggests that my assertion (“we'll never know about these”) is false, yet I maintain it's more true than you might imagine. :)

d:^D

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

In the above scenario, the player had called the Judge - so I was going with that.

Scott Marshall
However, the original post didn't mention anything about a judge being called

You're both right–in the two scenarios I posted, the judge is only called in the second.