I defer to what has already been stated here. No penalty since this is a beneficial trigger. Andy may choose to allow the trigger to go on the stack. Neil can target the only thing that was on the board at the time the trigger should have gone off, which is Phantasmal Image.

Although….. are we to assume that the original Sun Titan was not on the board at the time Restoration Angel entered?

Patrick has it. I would only add (and only because I'm being pedantic) that Neil will never have a choice to make; the RA's triggered ability is countered on resolution because its only target (the PI) is now illegal (having already been sacrificed).

Originally posted by Will Bumgardner:

Although….. are we to assume that the original Sun Titan was not on the board at the time Restoration Angel entered?

Correct. "Neil controls a Phantasmal Image that is a copy of Sun Titan, and no other creatures. " The Phantasmal Image is the only creature Neil controls at the beginning of the scenario.

Originally posted by Josh Stansfield:

Will Bumgardner
Although….. are we to assume that the original Sun Titan was not on the board at the time Restoration Angel entered?

Correct. "Neil controls a Phantasmal Image that is a copy of Sun Titan, and no other creatures. " The Phantasmal Image is the only creature Neil controls at the beginning of the scenario.

That's what I thought. We're good here then. I agree with what's been stated.

I'm with Callum on giving the Neil the opportunity to put the ability on the stack.

This was a fantastic reminder to read through the new documents that I'd been avoiding until they came into effect to not confuse myself with something that didn't apply yet!

Looking at the new missed trigger guidelines, we don't have a default action to apply without using the stack. We don't have a duration that has expired so we get to give the option to the opponent as to whether or not it goes on the stack.

The part that I'm not sure of is that I don't know whether or not to consider this trigger to be detrimental or not and hence whether or not to issue a warning. The guideline is whether or not you'd play this creature if it didn't have the trigger. As a bad player, I have to say that I probably would play a 3/4 flash, flying creature if it didn't have the other trigger.

But I don't think that makes it detrimental, since that trigger really just seems like icing on the cake to me. It still seems good, so I do want to call it non-deterimental, even though (at least for me) it fails the guideline given by Toby in his article about the changes.

I'm going with my gut instead of my reading on saying that I wouldn't issue a warning.

Well, I'll tackle the problem from another point of view. Feel free to tell me if I'm wrong though.
Restoration Angel's triggered ability is optional. We assume it resolved with the default action of “no blink”. Restoration Angel still targeted the Image though, so the missed trigger is, effectively, the Image one. It's detrimental, so Neil receives a warning for Missed Trigger. His opponent has now the choice to put this triggered ability on the stack.

M

According to the new policy, we can not account the board state in determining whether the trigger is detrimental or not, or to applying a penalty for missed trigger. While I have gone back and forth on this one a few times, it is apparent that restoration angel's triggered ability was meant to be a benefit “restoring a creature.” While there are corner cases where it would not be a benefit (this is one of those), overall it is beneficial.

As everyone else has said, within a turn (which we are in here), the opponent has the option of having their opponent put the ability on the stack. Since he can only target legal targets on the stack at the time, the image would be targeted, and go to the graveyard when the ability for the illusion resolved. The restoration angel's ability would then not resolve for not having a legal target.


On a side note: Thanks Josh for the question that made me go read again the new IPG, my IQs this weekend will be better for it :)

> From: Michael  Swager <forum-1509@apps.magicjudges.org>

>
>On a side note: Thanks Josh for the question that made me go read again the new IPG, my IQs this weekend will be better for it :)

> From: Michael White <forum-1509@apps.magicjudges.org>
>
> This was a fantastic reminder to read through the new documents that I'd
> been avoiding until they came into effect to not confuse myself with something
> that didn't apply yet!

And, once again, the Knowledge Pool ends up as a big win for one & all - my (very public!) thanks, once again, to all the folks who work so hard on this project.

– Scott Marshall, L5, Denver

On Tue Oct 02 19:00, Marco Storelli wrote:
> Well, I'll tackle the problem from another point of view. Feel free to tell me if I'm wrong though.
> Restoration Angel's triggered ability is optional. We assume it resolved with the default action of “no blink”. Restoration Angel still targeted the Image though, so the missed trigger is, effectively, the Image one. It's detrimental, so Neil receives a warning for Missed Trigger. His opponent has now the choice to put this triggered ability on the stack.
>

An important point to clarify I think is that we no longer assume that ‘default
actions’ or ‘may’ triggers resolved without doing anything. _All_ missed
triggers are resolved the same way now: the opponent is given the choice
whether to put it on the stack. If they do then the player can make either
choice. We also don't assume it was put on the stack targetting something. What
if two Images were the only creatures. You don't know which trigger has been
missed. What's been missed is the Angel trigger.

Lastly, I think it's been stated that ‘May’ triggers are never detrimental -
since the player can always choose not to do them (even given strange corner
cases like this one)

Matt

Not that I'm saying you guys are wrong, but can I ask why we're saying the Angel's trigger is “generally beneficial”?

The philosophy behind that idea in the new IPG is that we look at why the
card is played. If a card is played because of the triggered ability it is
generally considered beneficial. People play restoration angel for it's
Blink ability not for it's body (a secondary bonus for most people), and as
such we look at it as a beneficial trigger in a vacuum.

(I think I got that right)

I disagree. In fact I'd go as far as to argue that without the body (flying and flash too), the card wouldn't be nearly as playable, or even see play at all, as a significant proportion of the time you just cast it as a 3/4 Flying during combat, or at EoT for no value on the trigger.

I guess this brings up the discussion point: are we looking at how valuable a trigger is on a particular card (in terms of the card's playability or any other criteria) or are we looking at the trigger itself (in this case: Flicker).

According to Toby's article he cites “if the trigger didn’t exist, would the card be played?” as a guideline for determining a trigger to be “detrimental”. However, what do we do in cases like this one where the trigger and other aspects of the card are of equal value (or close to)?

In the case that we do look at the trigger in a vacuum, how do we, and by what criteria do we classify Flicker (or any other trigger for that matter)?

Edited Mackenzie Stratford (Oct. 3, 2012 03:40:22 AM)

Would you play a card like this in your deck at the 4cmc spot

3W

Flash, Flying

3/4

I can tell you most if not all competetive players I no would say hell no…

I've got a poll running on Facebook which is 5-2 in favour of playing the Angel sans the trigger :P

Ok, the way I see it;

Neil's obviously missed his trigger. The question now turns first to “What's the penalty?”

This means we need to look at Restoration Angel's triggered ability to work out whether it's generally beneficial/detrimental;

Originally posted by MIPG 2.1:

The controller of the missed trigger only receives a Warning if the triggered ability is generally considered detrimental for the controlling player.

I think a point's been raised about what Toby Elliot used to define a “beneficial/detrimental” ability in his article [blogs.magicjudges.org];

For one, if the trigger didn’t exist, would the card be played? Without its trigger, Dark Confidant is a 2/1 for 1B. That’s hardly going to make the cut, so I think we can safely say that Dark Confidant does not have a detrimental trigger.

However, there's a couple of important things that have been missed;

What is “generally considered detrimental”? There’s a couple of guidelines that can be useful to figure this out.

Detrimental triggers tend to be there to either make the card cheaper, or offset some other abusable advantage.

I think this is a situation where using Toby's example guideline is incorrect, and we should be using a strict definition of beneficial/detrimental abilities as opposed to Toby's guideline; it's certainly arguable that a 3/4 flash flier for 4 is playable, as done by Mackenzie Stratford. However, it's pretty clear that the trigger isn't there to make the card cheaper (although Skyline Predator would argue otherwise!), nor to offset an “abusable advantage”; it's only really detrimental in situations such as the current scenario. I'd argue that the trigger is “generally considered beneficial”, to use the words of the MIPG, even though here it's obviously detrimental; to quote Toby, “we don't want judges having to figure this out”.

Assuming that we're still along for the ride here, given the trigger's generally a beneficial one, we can look back at the MIPG and see;

Originally posted by MIPG 2.1:

The controller of the missed trigger only receives a Warning if the triggered ability is generally considered detrimental for the controlling player…

So Neil gets no warning. In general, his trigger would be a beneficial one, and remembering it is a skill. Note the next sentence, for those arguing Phantasmal Image technicalities too early;

Originally posted by MIPG 2.1:

…the current game state is not a factor in determining this.

Meaning we don't take the Image into consideration at any point. It'll be relevant if the trigger is put on the stack, which we're going to handle now. To the Additional Remedies subsection!

Originally posted by MIPG 2.1:

If the trigger specifies a default action associated with a choice made by the controller of the trigger (usually “If you don't …” or “… unless”), resolve the default action immediately without using the stack. If there are unresolved spells or abilities that are no longer legal as a result of this action, rewind the game to remove all such spells or abilities. Resulting triggers generated by the action still trigger and resolve as normal.

Yeah, this isn't very relevant here. Next!

Originally posted by MIPG 2.1:

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.

We're still within “a turn”, seeing as the Angel was cast during Andy's End Step. We're currently in Neil's first precombat Main Phase, and the Angel's ability has no duration, so we're fine with moving to the next section;

Originally posted by MIPG 2.1:

Otherwise, the opponent may choose to have the controller play the triggered ability.

So we offer the choice to Andy. Do note that it's very important to not give Andy any knowledge he might not have already (most relevantly that Restoration Angel's ability still targets, despite having that confusing “may”), but saying he can't choose to target the Delver is relevant.

Assuming Andy knows (or asks the Judge) that the triggered ability will have to target the Phantasmal Image, he's going to have it put on the stack so the Image gets sacrificed. If he's a nice guy, or just plain chooses to not let Neil have the ability, we can stop here. However, let's assume he chooses to have Neil play the triggered ability.

Originally posted by MIPG 2.1:

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.

Woops, got ahead of myself on the second bit; we already know he can't target the Delver with the ability. So we put the Angel's ability on the empty stack, targeting the only legal choice; Neil's Sun Titan.

Unfortunately for Neil, his Sun Titan is an Illusion with an unfortunate clause; “When this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it.” It's become the target of a spell or ability during our additional remedy, and the ability's triggered. The Sun Titan's ability will then be put on the stack on top of Restoration Angel's triggered ability. Presuming no Instant-speed shenanigans, Neil will sacrifice his Sun Titan, and then his Restoration Angel's ability will be countered on resolution, since all its targets are illegal.

With the ruling complete, I'd likely tell both Neil and Andy that they can come up and talk to me about the ruling once their game is complete, if they have any questions about how Restoration Angel's triggered ability works. Also, the ruling may make Neil unhappy, so letting Neil know that he can appeal to the Head Judge (If you're not it) could be important. Additionally, if the ruling took as long as it took me to write this, then award them a sizable portion of extra time.

Edited Josh Andrews (Oct. 3, 2012 05:08:20 PM)