Hello there,
I would like to propose a scenario that happened in a Competitive REL tournament as a discussion open to everyone. Feel free to add your contribution even if you're not O.

Artorias controls Ephara, God of the Polis, plays a creature, then passes the turn. Nito untaps, draws, plays a land and passes the turn. Artorias untaps, says “Draw from Ephara” and draws two cards (including the one from the turn).
-You are watching the match: what do you do?
-Tangent: does your answer change if you got called by Nito?

Keep in mind that:
+There is no Cheating involved, Artorias didn't know that Ephara triggers on every upkeep (and not only on his).
+In the main scenario, Nito didn't know this either.
+In the tangent scenario, Nito instead knew how Ephara actually works and acted within his beliefs of the Trigger Policy. (make sure to indicate that you're talking about the tangent in this case)

Greetings and Thanks in advance,
M

Edited Marco Storelli (Feb. 16, 2014 11:52:13 AM)

I'm seeing a Game Loss for Drawing Extra Cards here. The only exception
would be if Antorias said “Draw from Ephara” and got confirmation from Nito
before taking the draw.

Artorias missed the trigger that would have drawn a card for him. What he
has done here is drawn a card for no reason. There is no GRV immediately
before the extra draw.

The Tangent doesn't change anything. Nito doesn't have to point out
Artorias' trigger and has done nothing wrong.

-George FitzGerald
L2, Sarasota, FL

I agree with George, unless something relevant happened before the extra cards were drawn, Artorias has commited Drawing Extra Cards.
However, do not forget to issue a Warning for Failure to Maintain Game State to Nito if he does not point the error out immediately.
(Nito is never required to point out his opponent's triggers though, even if he knows about them)

You might want to remind the players they should clearly communicate with their opponent and confirm their game actions, such as drawing cards, to avoid errors like this one. (They are not required to do so though, but clear communication is a good idea anyway).
Also, players are expected to understand how their cards work on a basic level, and if they play them incorrectly, they have to feel the consequences.

Best regards,
Sebastian Stückl

Edited Sebastian Stückl (Feb. 17, 2014 07:53:47 AM)

Sebastian:

Why give Failure to Maintain Game State to the Nito? Do we expect players to be able to always catch when their opponent can move a card into their hand? (Hidden thought- the IPG mentions why DEC is a Game Loss).

Some food for thought about this scenario.

The definition of DEC includes the phase, “at the moment before he or she began the instruction or action that put a card into his or her hand, no other Game Play Error or Communication Policy Violation had been committed.” (Emphasis mine.)

We all agree that the Artorias committed a Missed Trigger infraction in Nito's upkeep, which Nito did not have to point out. While this doesn't result in a penalty due to how we now handle non-detrimental Missed Triggers, it's still a Game Play Error.

Is that sufficient for this scenario to no longer be DEC? If so, what would be the appropriate infraction and fix?

Edited Paul Baranay (Feb. 16, 2014 08:14:58 PM)

To answer my own question: I was mis-read the phrase “at the moment before” from the definition of DEC, which I felt was there just for emphasis. But, rather, that phrase means that the “it's-not-DEC provision” only applies if the GPE occurred right before the extra card draw. Since the Missed Trigger error didn't occur right before the extra card was drawn, DEC applies as normal.

Originally posted by Evan Cherry:

Sebastian:

Why give Failure to Maintain Game State to the Nito? Do we expect players to be able to always catch when their opponent can move a card into their hand? (Hidden thought- the IPG mentions why DEC is a Game Loss).

I don't think we need to sit and wait for the opponent to have a chance to call it out. We observed a rules violation and it's something that shouldn't be given a chance to escalate, so it would be something we'd want to look into. “One sec. How many cards did you just draw?” So there'd be no chance for the opponent to warrant a FtMGS.

On a related note (apologies if too tangental). If someone forgets to discard down to 7 at the end of their turn, do we expect their opponent to notice? It's derived information, but that seems like a high burden to place on the opponent (especially what you note about the IPG and DEC). If the opponent notices during their own draw step and they call us over, do they get a FtMGS for allowing their opponent to not discard?

The rules seem to say so, but it seems a bit robotic. And inducing people to ask “cards in hand” at the end of every turn seems un-fun.

Originally posted by Chris Nowak:

I don't think we need to sit and wait for the opponent to have a chance to call it out. We observed a rules violation and it's something that shouldn't be given a chance to escalate, so it would be something we'd want to look into. “One sec. How many cards did you just draw?” So there'd be no chance for the opponent to warrant a FtMGS.

I agree with this. There is no reason to wait and see if Nito notices the mistake and calls us. Artorias drew an extra card, we noticed, so we step in.

Originally posted by Evan Cherry:

Sebastian:

Why give Failure to Maintain Game State to the Nito? Do we expect players to be able to always catch when their opponent can move a card into their hand? (Hidden thought- the IPG mentions why DEC is a Game Loss).

Yes and no, while I wouldn't expect a player to be able to maintain wether their opponent can illegaly move a card to their hand at all times, in case they could reasonably be expected to notice their opponent moved a card to their hand(such as in this scenario), we can expect them to realize the action was illegal and point it out just like any other Game Play Error.
Notice that this is only a warning(and will almost never be upgraded), we are simply making the player aware an error has occured, and they should pay more attention to the game state in the future to make sure it is correct.

Chris Nowak
I don't think we need to sit and wait for the opponent to have a chance to call it out. We observed a rules violation and it's something that shouldn't be given a chance to escalate, so it would be something we'd want to look into. “One sec. How many cards did you just draw?” So there'd be no chance for the opponent to warrant a FtMGS.

While I agree you should intervene as soon as the error has occured, wether you issue a penalty for FtMGS depends on how quickly you react and interrupt the game.
If you take away the player's opportunity to point out the error, I agree you shouldn't penalize them, since they had no chance to fulfill their obligation.
However, if a significant amount of time has passed, or other game actions have been taken by the player, I would issue a Warning to remind them they have to pay attention to their opponent's actions as well, and a judge being present does not eliminate their responsibility to do so.

Chris Nowak
On a related note (apologies if too tangental). If someone forgets to discard down to 7 at the end of their turn, do we expect their opponent to notice? It's derived information, but that seems like a high burden to place on the opponent (especially what you note about the IPG and DEC). If the opponent notices during their own draw step and they call us over, do they get a FtMGS for allowing their opponent to not discard?

Even though players are also responsible to make sure their opponent discards to 7 cards, realizing your opponent has 8 cards in their hand rather than 7 is practically impossible, and I couldn't imagine maintaining that information myself consistently, so I would, generally, not expect players to do so either and would not issue a penalty if they fail to do so, though the exact situation may affect my decision. For instance, if a player discards to 7 at EOT, and does not play any cards until the end of their next turn, we can expect their opponent to notice they have to discard a card now.

As a side note, in my opinion you do not actually “allow” a player to commit a GPE if you had no chance to notice the illegal action, so I would usually make a decision based on that assumption.

Edited Sebastian Stückl (Feb. 17, 2014 09:34:07 AM)

*Note: The views and opinions expressed below are solely those of a devil's advocate and do not necessarily reflect those of Joe Hughto*

Why does DEC carry a Game Loss? The IPG says this about DEC: “Though this error is easy to commit accidentally, the potential for it to be overlooked by opponents mandates a higher level of penalty.” Since Artorias says “Draw from Ephara” does that not draw attention to the fact that the AP is now drawing an extra card? Does this make the likelihood of abuse here much lower? What about if Nito was going to interrupt Artorias by saying something like “Wait. You missed that trigger last turn”, but Artorias drew too quickly? Does that half second of time that Artorias could have waite equal the difference between a GL and just a simple GRV?

I don't think we need to sit and wait for the opponent to have a chance to call it out. We observed a rules violation and it's something that shouldn't be given a chance to escalate, so it would be something we'd want to look into. “One sec. How many cards did you just draw?” So there'd be no chance for the opponent to warrant a FtMGS.

This. I've never heard of a judge ruling FtMGS when their opponent receives a GL for DEC.

On a related note (apologies if too tangental). If someone forgets to discard down to 7 at the end of their turn, do we expect their opponent to notice? It's derived information, but that seems like a high burden to place on the opponent (especially what you note about the IPG and DEC). If the opponent notices during their own draw step and they call us over, do they get a FtMGS for allowing their opponent to not discard?

The player should receive a GRV for not discarding in their cleanup and the opponent should receive a FtMGs. It is reasonable for the opponent to somewhat keep track of their opponenent's hand size (big or small) over time and I think it's reasonable that they should ask at end of turn if their opponent needs to discard.

Think about playing Magic- you notice when your opponent resolves a huge Sphinx's Revelation and/or just hasn't played many cards over the last few turns. You want your opponent to have to discard at EOT. That's a reasonable expectation to maintain the game state and warrant a FtMGS. It's an error of surplus.

When suddenly your opponent has an extra card neither can account for? That's unusual and hard to pinpoint. DEC for one player, no FtMGS for the opponent. It's an error of subtlety.

Notice that this is only a warning(and will almost never be upgraded), we are simply making the player aware an error has occured, and they should pay more attention to the game state to make sure this does not happen.

You are correct in your desire to underlie that a Warning is a minor penalty and shouldn't be taken harshly. However, we assign warnings when a player deserves them and should not be hesitant as judges to do so. This is a case where I don't think the player has committed FtMGS, so they should not be penalized at all.

Hello again,
I would like to say thanks to all who contributed in the discussion. When I faced this situation myself, my first impressions regarding DEC were the same as you wrote them above.

However, as I often do, I've decided to explore a bit. Exploring can make you reach big treasures, see new areas, or sometimes you just fall into a pitfall. While I'm pretty sure this is the latter case, here's something I want you to comment on:

Ephara's trigger is not choice-based (first paragraph) and if we're still in Artorias' upkeep the second paragraph doesn't apply:

If the triggered ability creates an effect whose duration has already expired or the ability was missed prior to the current phase in the previous player's turn, instruct the players to continue playing.

So we CAN apply the third paragraph:

If the triggered ability isn’t covered by the previous two paragraphs, the opponent chooses whether the triggered ability is added to the stack. If it is, it’s inserted at the appropriate place on the stack if possible or on the bottom of the stack…

Which means that, while the trigger has clearly been missed, we can still be in the time frame to recover it. Since both players were convinced that Ephara worked only on controller's upkeep, if Nito gets asked, in the MAIN scenario he will allow to place the trigger back on the stack and thus Artorias could be able to legitimately draw his card…

…Which is why I introduced the TANGENT scenario in the first place, in which Nito will NOT allow the trigger back on the stack in that case.

So, could there be some room to explore this? Or did I just fall into a pitfall? Let me know :)

Greetings and thanks again,
M

This is a pitfall. The Missed Trigger policy is about missed triggers, not mistimed triggers

A triggered ability triggers, but the player controlling the ability doesn't demonstrate awareness of the trigger's existence the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion.

If a player does resolve a trigger, but at the wrong time, then it's not Missed Trigger. It's some sort of Game Play Error (in this case, DEC) even if it's not Cheating.

Originally posted by Tom Wyliehart:

This is a pitfall. The Missed Trigger policy is about missed triggers, not mistimed triggers

A triggered ability triggers, but the player controlling the ability doesn't demonstrate awareness of the trigger's existence the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion.

If a player does resolve a trigger, but at the wrong time, then it's not Missed Trigger. It's some sort of Game Play Error (in this case, DEC) even if it's not Cheating.

I'm not sure if I'd agree. The rest of the sentence after your bolded section points out that they need to notice it at the appropriate time.
Would you rule the same if an opponent attempted to resolve their Staff of Nin in their Main Phase, simply saying “Draw from Staff of Nin”? The player is demonstrating awareness of the trigger, but not in the correct phase - same as the original situation.

Originally posted by Tom Wyliehart:

This is a pitfall. The Missed Trigger policy is about missed triggers, not mistimed triggers

I don't see support in the IPG for that interpretation. The usual phrasing I hear is that it's about missed triggers, not forgotten triggers. If you remembered your trigger in time you didn't miss it, even if you said “I completely forgot the trigger”. But the timing is important.

Originally posted by Tom Wyliehart:

A triggered ability triggers, but the player controlling the ability doesn't demonstrate awareness of the trigger's existence the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion.

If a player does resolve a trigger, but at the wrong time, then it's not Missed Trigger. It's some sort of Game Play Error (in this case, DEC) even if it's not Cheating.

They didn't just resolve it at the wrong time, they didn't actually trigger it at the right time. If he'd said on his opponent's turn “I had a creature enter, so this triggers. So when it gets to my turn I draw a card”, it would be a resolution problem. But they just flat out missed the trigger.

And if I'm reading it correctly, the time of the error was last turn, so for purposes of evaluating DEC, the Drawing wasn't preceded by another GPE or CPV. So it's actually DEC, which is a game loss.