The new MTR [wizards.com] and IPG [wizards.com] went up today, so I thought I would create a topic to facilitate discussion of the new rules changes. You can also find Toby Elliott's DVD commentary on the new missed trigger rules here [blogs.magicjudges.org].

The change to how we handle missed triggers seems to me to be the biggest one, and I wouldn't be surprised if it generated the most discussion, but please feel free to comment on other changes as well. These include folding Failure to Reveal in to GRV, abandoning the concept of the turn cycle (which is mainly to do with triggers but also affected certain GRVs), allowing certain classes of cards (promos and DFCs) to be stored with the sideboard so long as they are not similarly sleeved, incorporating rules on Planeswalker Points into the MTR, and stipulating that judges will not use video replay to assist with rulings.

I haven't had enough time to process the new missed trigger rules to give any sort of meaningful opinion on them yet, but I should like to mention a couple of points based on my first impressions.

First, as Toby indicates in his commentary, the new rules promote consistency by handling “no visual effect” and “may” abilities uniformly with mandatory ones–specifically, it is now clear that the opponent can choose to have the controller of a “may” trigger put it on the stack (say because the only legal target is a Phantasmal Image), even though the controller still has the option of whether or not to carry it out.

Second, I like the fact that the new test to determine whether we issue a warning is framed objectively. That is, we must determine whether a trigger is “generally considered detrimental for the controlling player” independently of the game state. Essentially, we are tasked with considering the card in a vacuum. This means, in theory at least, that it will be possible to compile a database (much like David Lyford-Smith's one on lapsing triggers) which lists for each triggered ability for each card whether it is detrimental or not. I think this would be a valuable tool to promote consistency of application, and would be happy to help out with it–as Toby points out, the number of cards in each set which have detrimental abilities is relatively small, so it isn't a monumental task.

Third, I'm not thrilled about the choice to use turns instead of turn cycles as a measure of time, as I for one find it less intuitive. To make an analogy, when I say that a day has passed between one event and another, I intuitively think of 24 hours. If the first happened at 23:59 and the second two minutes later, I would not say that the first happened a day ago. Similarly, when playing magic, if I take an action during my opponent's end step and then another during my upkeep, I would not say a full turn had elapsed (though I would say that the first action happened last turn). Thus, in addition to intuition, I preferred the turn cycle because it was a consistent measure–it would always cover the same amount of “game time,” whereas “a turn ago” could cover several phases and steps or only one. Ultimately this is simply personal preference, and not a major sticking point.
(Also, just to be sure I understand, does “more than a turn ago” mean the same thing as “before the beginning of the current turn”? It seems that the use of the word “more” here could cause some confusion: if I am active player, I might say that what my opponent did on his most recent turn happened “a turn ago,” but not “more than a turn ago.”)

Edit: It has been clarified that the definition of a turn is consistent with that of a turn cycle, only for less game time. It can therefore be defined as “the time from the beginning of one step or phase until the end of the next same step or phase.” (Note that the only difference between a turn and a turn cycle is that it is no longer necessary for the two steps/phases to be those of the same active player). With this in mind, my objection no longer stands, though I would still point out that it would be helpful to have this definition spelled out in the rules.

Finally, I am a little confused by the following sentence in the rules: “If the duration of the effect generated by the trigger has already expired (…) instruct the players to continue playing.” This seems fairly strait forward in the context of triggered abilities which generate effects which last “until” or “for as long as” some condition is true, but in his commentary Toby also includes triggers such as Geist of Saint Traft or Thatcher Revolt, neither of which generate effects with a duration in the standard sense; rather, they create delayed triggers. I would just like some clarification as to how the new rules apply here. If I attack with a Geist and miss the trigger, how long does my opponent have before it is too late to have the judge put it on the stack (assuming the odd case where he wants it to happen)? If we finish combat and proceed to my second main phase, is it too late (in other words, are we treating the Geist trigger as though it had a duration which lasts until the beginning of the end of combat step)?

Anyway, this is just some food for thought. Let the discussion begin!

Edited Robert Hinrichsen (Sept. 20, 2012 06:52:55 PM)

(Also, just to be sure I understand, does “more than a turn ago” mean the same thing as “before the beginning of the current turn”?)

I'm certainly not reading “more than a turn ago” in quite that fashion. Toby mentions this:

Player 1 missed an upkeep trigger during their turn, and now we’re in Player 2′s main phase? A turn has passed. Any time we can do something intuitive, it’s better than having another definition.

If I'm understanding this correctly, this particular example is more than a turn because we have passed Player 2's upkeep. If you work in a place that uses a rolling calendar for anything (like the sick day allowance which I'm using right now), you are familiar with the concept. If you don't - here's how it works. I'm allowed up to 20 sick days within a rolling calendar year. If I had used no sick days before today, my “rolling calendar year” would run from 9/20/12 to 9/19/13, and I could use up to 20 days within that period generally without penalty.

To give the “less than a turn” example to complement Toby's above… I play Restoration Angel during my postcombat main phase, when my only other creature is a Phantasmal Image copying your Zombie token. You notice during your precombat main phase that we didn't take care of that trigger. You call a judge. If you want, you could make us resolve this trigger.

Ultimately, I think that if the passing of the turn were intended to be the border which a missed trigger cannot cross, it would have been worded “before the beginning of the current turn” or “If the trigger was caught in/during the same turn, the opponent decides whether…”

Originally posted by Regina Cross:

To give the “less than a turn” example to complement Toby's above… I play Restoration Angel during my postcombat main phase, when my only other creature is a Phantasmal Image copying your Zombie token. You notice during your precombat main phase that we didn't take care of that trigger. You call a judge. If you want, you could make us resolve this trigger.

Ultimately, I think that if the passing of the turn were intended to be the border which a missed trigger cannot cross, it would have been worded “before the beginning of the current turn” or “If the trigger was caught in/during the same turn, the opponent decides whether…”

Ah, that's interesting. If that is the case, then a turn is defined as the time from the beginning of one step or phase until the end of the next same step or phase, which differs from the turn cycle only in that it does not matter whether the active player is the same player in both steps or phases. It seems then that my interpretation was incorrect and moreover that my objection does not stand because a turn does indeed denote a constant amount of game time.

Still, I feel that this definition should be included in the rules because it is not obviously clear. For instance, if it were not for Toby's example, one could argue that “a turn ago” means anything that happened on the turn prior to the current turn (regardless of steps or phases), and that “more than a turn ago” means anything which happened prior to the beginning of that turn. Perhaps I'm the only one who sees any ambiguity here?

Sure, it is possible for people to read it differently. If I said “I ate lunch more than an hour ago” at 13:01, I'm sure some people may think “Does he mean anytime between 12:01 and 13:00?”, but I think that most people will think that I mean sometime before noon. The difference here is that people understand that a hour is a duration and people may not understand that a turn is a duration as well. However, if you compare it to “the prior turn” or “last turn”, you can more clearly see the difference.

I've confirmed with Toby that ‘more than a turn ago’ does indeed follow the turn cycle logic, but for less time.

So, something missed in my upkeep could happen up to the end of my opponent's upkeep; something missed in my opponent's declare attackers could happen up to the end of my declare attackers, and so on.

On Thu Sep 20 16:19, Kim Warren wrote:
> I've confirmed with Toby that ‘more than a turn ago’ does indeed follow the turn cycle logic, but for less time.
>
> So, something missed in my upkeep could happen up to the end of my opponent's upkeep; something missed in my opponent's declare attackers could happen up to the end of my declare attackers, and so on.

So, if I have a dragon broodmother, and after putting the trigger on the stack in my upkeep, I realise that it's actually ‘each’ and not ‘your’. Is it possible to get two triggers on the stack at once? (lets say the opponent has a suture priest in play and hence wants the trigger).

Matt

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

So, if I have a dragon broodmother, and after putting the trigger on the stack in my upkeep, I realise that it's actually 'each' and not 'your'. Is it possible to get two triggers on the stack at once? (lets say the opponent has a suture priest in play and hence wants the trigger).

Yes. Less than a turn has passed since that trigger was missed, so the trigger isn't just skipped. Once a judge is alerted and the situation investigated, the opponent has the choice to put the trigger onto the stack if desired.

I'm still getting some doubts.

i'll give some examples, the new rule of triggers that won't have any “visual impact” and would resolve without beeing needed to say so.

A trigger is considered missed once the controller of the trigger has taken an action after the point at which a trigger should have resolved or, in the case of a trigger controlled by the non-active player, after that player has taken an action that indicates they have actively passed priority.

By the new change, Birds of paradise is a 0/1, correct? Since Player A didn't reffer to the exalted trigger, and has missed the opportunity to put it on the stack.

Playber B has till his combat phase to put the trigger on the stack. (if he wanted too)?

Duration exipiry also avoids a few quirky situations. If a trigger was supposed to give +2/+2 to a creature until end of turn and it was missed, the other player doesn’t have the option to wait until their turn and then make it happen because they have Smite the Monstrous. Same with tokens from Geist of Saint Traft or Thatcher Revolt.

If the delayed trigger from Geist of Saint Traft doesn't resolve, do he get the token forever? Using the same logic from the the +2/+2 that won't be applied.

Symmetric triggers, such as Howling Mine, also don’t need any special handling – your opponent decides both halves, so the incentives are in all the right places.

if i'm understading this right, if my opponent controls howling mine, i can “forget” to draw if my opponent doesn't point it?

-

One final quick note, as it was referred on the dvd comentary, isn't it kind of hard/relative to determine if a trigger is detrimental or not? I understand that the penalty is a warning to sometimes avoid to punish really forgotten triggers, but nevertheless taking the example with dark confidant.

sometimes it might be useful to forget the trigger and sometimes not, will the judge be the decider on it was on purpose or not? (and thus beeing considered cheating?)


I believe i've been clear on what i've tried to say, if not please say so.

regards

Edited José Moreira (Sept. 21, 2012 03:58:15 AM)

1. Yes; in that case the bird would be a 0/1. Exalted triggers need to be announced. To understand why, consider trying to explain to a player (in a way that will make him believe it is fair) that while yes, his opponent has to announce triggers or has missed them, and that yes, this trigger was not announced, he has still made a really bad block because the attacker is magical mystery bigger. An associated problem was the Kruin Striker mystery. You play a creature, say nothing and attack. I have no blocks. You mark down that I lose two life. Is it cheating or not to agree that I lose two life? I mean, it is a no visual effect trigger that you do not need to announce, but you are clearly totally unaware of it - so did you miss it? It all got a bit messy. Basically, NVE triggers just don't work well in this world where you can miss triggers and I'm not obliged to tell you.

2. I think that you have misunderstood that paragraph! What it means is that if I attack with my Geist, forget the trigger and finish combat, and realise in my second main phase that I forgot the Angel trigger, that trigger can't go on the stack at that point - the Angel should have been exiled at the end of combat anyway. Likewise, if I notice that I missed my Wild Defiance trigger in my second main phase during your upkeep, the trigger can't go on the stack then; the pump had a duration to the end of turn, and that duration is over.

3. Yes. Your opponent controls the trigger and is responsible for making sure it resolves. Though you can't try to dodge this by running super-fast through your beginning phase so that they don't have the chance to say anything - if it is determined that they just didn't get the chance to remind you, it will go on the stack.

4. It is easy to determine if a trigger is detrimental in the abstract, and very hard to determine if it is detrimental in the game state. This is why determination for judges is in the abstract. Also, this will only affect if there is a penalty or not! If a judge decides that in the abstract Dark Confidant is not detrimental, they issue no warning. They then ask the opponent if they want the trigger to go on the stack. The opponent will have a much better read on the game state, and so if they thing that it would be detrimental in situ, they are likely to choose to put it on the stack!

As has always been the case with everything, the judge will be the decider as to whether they think that a player might be cheating, and choose whether to investigate further.

Edited Kim Warren (Sept. 21, 2012 09:21:03 AM)

Originally posted by José Moreira:

By the new change, Birds of paradise is a 0/1, correct? Since Player A didn't reffer to the exalted trigger, and has missed the opportunity to put it on the stack.

Playber B has till his combat phase to put the trigger on the stack. (if he wanted too)?

From what I understood, player B as till end of player A's turn to have player A playing this ability, as Exalted as a set duration (until end of turn), and the rule states “If the duration of the effect generated by the trigger has already expired, or the trigger was missed more than a turn ago, instruct the players to continue playing.”.
That's also consistent with Kim second point.

Kim and Emilien, thank you for your quick answers.

After that been clarified to me, i have to agree its very healty to the game (both as a player and as judge).

A trigger is considered missed when we are beyond the point where it would resolve.
Therefore, if I have a “When this attacks, deal 2 damage to target creature.” trigger and forget it, and then me and opponent play some spells in declare attackers step, at any point during this, if I remember the trigger or my opponent reminds me of it, I put it on bottom of the stack without any penalty or infraction (unless I forgot it intentionally) and I also choose its target at this time.

Correct?

Originally posted by Petr Hudecek:

A trigger is considered missed when we are beyond the point where it would resolve.
Therefore, if I have a “When this attacks, deal 2 damage to target creature.” trigger and forget it, and then me and opponent play some spells in declare attackers step, at any point during this, if I remember the trigger or my opponent reminds me of it, I put it on bottom of the stack without any penalty or infraction (unless I forgot it intentionally) and I also choose its target at this time.

Correct?

Only if your opponent wants to have the trigger to go on the stack. From the IPG:

Otherwise, the opponent may choose to have the controller play the triggered ability. If they do, insert the forgotten ability at the appropriate place or on the bottom of the stack. No player may make choices involving objects that were not in the zone or zones referenced by the trigger when the ability should have triggered. For example, if the ability instructs a player to sacrifice a creature, that player can’t sacrifice a creature that wasn’t on the battlefield when the ability should have triggered.

So in this particular case I doubt that your opponent wants you to get trigger, unless he is really nice.
And, if he wants you to put on the stack you can target only creatures that were already there at the beginning of the declare attackers step (in case your opponent or you flashed in a creature)

While I really like the new trigger rules for the most part, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the implications of Warnings depending on whether or not the whole trigger is detrimental in the abstract.

The idea behind not taking the game state into account–not forcing the judge to evaluate the game strategically–is good, even great. But if we're not handing out a penalty, at a larger event there's no way to reliably track multiple instances of that behavior over the course of the event, and I've seen way too many people get killed by their own Dark Confidant, either directly or indirectly, to be very comfortable with missing its trigger never getting tracked through penalty history.

I'd just like to remind that the game state should still have some bearing on our Investigation.  If a player is forgetting a normally beneficial trigger that, in the current game state, is detrimental - then you have to decide if the player is Cheating or not.


Tracking multiple Warnings for missed trigger over the course of an event rarely matters (unless, of course, if I happen to be playing Thalia for the first time and repeatedly forget about the extra cost…). 


Thanks - Scott “forgets Thalia” Marshall, L5, Denver