At this point I think we all hate the trigger of Desecration Demon. Toby mentions it as the N°1 worst trigger of all time (from judge perspective). Because every few months this trigger evolves into a discussion in some community in my country, every now and then I need to re-check for it.

Now I have 2 interesting questions:
1) In this thread (and in Toby's article) it became clear that IPG's phrase “If a triggered ability would have no impact on the game, it’s not an infraction to fail to demonstrate awareness of it” aplies when there are no creatures to sacrifice, even in the world full of snapcasters and angels of last year's standard. ¿But what about a non transformed Mutavault?
Real example: Aaron says “combat?” and Neil, who has no creatures in the battlefield, says “yes”. Aaron taps his DD. After a few seconds of thinking, he remembers he could transform and sacrifice the mutavault, and call a judge. Does the fragment quoted before works here?
This same situation leads to the next problem.

2) Assume Neil had some creature and therefore you consider this was indeed a missed trigger, and apply the warning. Now thinks becomes complicated. The IPG explicitly says that "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. No player may make choices involving objects that were not in the appropriate zone or zones 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.“. There is no rewind supported by the documents, and the point where we discover the ability was forgotten, is when the desecration demon is already tapped. So, technically, Neil's possibilities to sac lead to horrible scenarios for him.

I'm inclined to say for 1) that the phrase quoted can't be taken into account, as there are cards in a public zone that can actually make the ability of the demon matter, even if it is not a creature (yet).

For 2) I think I would deviate and rewind. I know it doesn't sound as ”exceptional" as the example in the IPG, but in many ways, DD's trigger is actually quite exceptional.

I would love to hear your opinions.
Thanks!

Edited Joaquín Ossandón (Aug. 5, 2014 03:32:07 PM)

Joaquin,

Scenario #2 came up just a couple weekends ago at SCG Open: Kansas City. It made for a great discussion among judges there that day. It was discussed and the overwhelming consensus was that a deviation was the best course of action. Everyone agreed that there was nothing ‘exceptional’ about missing a trigger, but the potential for abuse, and the severe impact it has on the game justified deviating and backing up to the point of a missed trigger.

In scenario 1, Neil agrees to combat, and it partially responsible for remembering the triggers as well. I would not back up in scenario 1, but I would give a warning to Aaron since there is an object on the battlefield that could satisfy the demon trigger. What I get out of the two articles is that we can't take into account what might be in private zones, but we do need to be aware of public zones.

the reason I back up on Scenario 2 and not 1, is that in scenario 1 the NAP agreed to combat, therefore progressing past the point of the trigger (go to combat = move to declare attackers, the demon triggers at the beginning of combat). In scenario 2 the AP just swings with the demon and at that point move the game to a point where placing the trigger on the stack would be irrelevant and thus bypasses the drawback of the card. It would be hard to prove that they did it intentionally, and could easily allow them to have 1-2 free swings with the demon every tournament completely preventing their opponent from tapping the demon.

Interesting pool of decisions.

I'm courious about your decision at scenario 1). From IPG perspective, I can understand (althought at this point don't share) the thesis of “not infraction, no penalty”, convoking "If a triggered ability would have no impact on the game, it’s not an infraction to fail to demonstrate awareness of it”, and supported by the recognition that the ability to transform of Mutavault involves derived information. Still, the IPG states that Neil is NOT responsable for remembering his opponent trigger:
Players are expected to remember their own triggered abilities (…) Even if an opponent is involved in the announcement or resolution of the ability, the controller is still responsible for ensuring the opponents make the appropriate choices and take the appropriate actions. Players are not required to point out triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so if they wish.

Therefore, I don't see the rules support to make a difference between scenario 1 and 2 (assuming both deserves a missed trigger infraction). The point when the infraction was discovered is still when the creatures are tapped, and it looks like is AP responsability to make NAP make his choice.

In both of them if the non active player wants to sacrifice the creature they can stop the active player while they're “declaring attackers” or in other words they would have priority in start of combat and do so. While we don't penalise players for not pointing out their opponents triggers but if you want them to happen you have to do so at the correct time

I don't agree with you Gareth.

I think the IPG explains that he shouldn't be penalized for his opponent forgeting his trigger. Missed trigger specifically says that the responsability of remembering the opponent (and making sure he makes a specific choice, like DD's ability) is the controler of the trigger: “Even if an opponent is involved in the announcement or resolution of the ability, the controller is still responsible for ensuring the opponents make the appropriate choices and take the appropriate actions”. I think your statement contradicts this.

Under wich rule are you making NAP responsable for this?

I don't think “Players are not required to point out triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so if they wish” makes NAP responsable of keepeing track of the triggers with detrimental effect of the opponent. The opposite interpretation would make the other quote meaningless (and also, we would issue FtMGS when they don't notice it (wich is something we don't do)).

As a side note, I think is possible to try to fix this “the technical way” and ask NAP if he wants to put the trigger on the stack now (with the demon tapped and attacking). That would be considereded technically correct, but I think I agree with Nicholas Brown on deviating.

The point I believe Gareth is making is that, while the NAP is not responsible for the trigger in the sense that she has not committed any infraction nor will be receiving any penalty for its being missed, she is responsible for calling attention to it at the appropriate time should she wish to interact with it. Admittedly, the trigger does not give the NAP a very wide window here, but that doesn't change the fact that if she wants it to happen, she may have to call attention to it herself.

While I can understand the sentiment to deviate, I don't think there's a philosophical or policy reason to do so. We acknowledge the AP's responsibility to remember his own triggers with the Missed Trigger infraction, and the Warning for it being a generally detrimental trigger covers possible angle-shooting. If the AP is trying to sneak one by deliberately, then our investigation will hopefully play that out and we may be in Cheating territory. If it's an honest mistake, then Missed Trigger - Warning covers that. AP has benefited from his mistake, but sometimes that happens when mistakes are made in a game. It would be no different from missing a Dark Confidant trigger that would have revealed a card that would have killed you in that regard. We're not necessarily always going to undo or repair any illegal advantage that's been gained when we apply our fixes, nor should that be our goal.

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

While I can understand the sentiment to deviate, I don't think there's a philosophical or policy reason to do so.

Justin,

Your first statement i feel is dead on, but your second statement (quoted) I do feel strongly against. Imagine a situation that I dont feel is in any dark corner: Its game 3, its been a long grueling match NAP is at 5 life. AP has a demon that has been getting tapped down for the last few turns, and NAP is finally out of creatures on the board to sac to the demon. NAP has one mutavault that AP doesnt consider. AP in a lot of excitement and anticipation simply says attack you with demon for the win! At no point did NAP have a chance to point out the missed trigger in time to stop the demon. Granted NAP could have said “go, and when you get to your combat step I'm going to activate my mutavault and tap down your demon”. I feel that is not something that we should ever expect from a player. a Go, during your upkeep… is something we do expect, but for NAP to basically jump to AP's combat is a long stretch.

Basically the point I am trying to make is that it's not that hard to envision a player attacking with the dreaded demon without declaring “combat” or allowing NAP to even notice the trigger is missed until the demon is already swinging. The normal fix for missed triggers simply does not fit this application.

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

the Warning for it being a generally detrimental trigger covers possible angle-shooting. If the AP is trying to sneak one by deliberately, then our investigation will hopefully play that out and we may be in Cheating territory.

The warning itself doesn't really cover angle shooting, it just prevents the player from doing 3 times in a single event. granted the tracking should pick up on this pretty quickly, but Warning itself doesn't really fix the situation.
And if the player is doing it deliberately then I would like to hope that we can discern that and nail then for cheating. But I feel that my example above is not too far fetched and shows how its very possible for this to get missed and even with the NAP paying close attention for them not to have any sort of defense from the missed trigger.

A player may not take an action to progress the game and miss a trigger if someone wishes it to happen at that time. The difference is in the OP the non active player has allowed the game to be progressed and the to not happen.

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

she is responsible for calling attention to it at the appropriate time should she wish to interact with it.

I may be wrong, but I don't think this is supported by the documents. “Players are not required to point out triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so if they wish” doesn't seem to involve any kind of responsability, most likely a posibility (or it would say something like: “though they should/must/have to do so if they want the ability to trigger”).
The whole text of missed trigger policy involves puting the responsability on the contorller; that's why we penalize him and not the opponent. I'm still wondering how your point of view takes care of:

Even if an opponent is involved in the announcement or resolution of the ability, the controller is still responsible for ensuring the opponents make the appropriate choices and take the appropriate actions

.

I agree that deviating the standard fix can be conflictive, and I can see reasons (consistency) for not doing it, but, as Nicholas says, it just seems really wrong. And I can see why this was ranked a Nº1 by toby xD.

What I was saying with that statement is, if the NAP just wishes for the trigger to be completely ignored, then she need not do anything. However, if she wants the trigger to happen, then she is going to need to speak up. For Desecration Demon's trigger, her window for doing so is admittedly smaller than for other cards, but it's definitely still there.

A: “Go to Attacks.”
N: “Ok.”
A: “Attack with Demon.”
N: “Hold on. JUDGE!”

In such a case, NAP is acting at her first opportunity to call attention to the missed trigger. I would, if asked to do so, rule that NAP is in the Beginning of Combat Step in such a case.

That, as it happens, is NOT the case being discussed here. In the OP, the AP remembers the trigger himself, after having attacked and the NAP having allowed it, which she is permitted to do should she want the trigger to be missed.

I don't absolve the AP of his responsibility to remember the trigger, and, since DD is a generally detrimental trigger, he will be getting a Warning for Missed Trigger as a result. However, if the NAP wants her opponent's trigger to happen, she's going to have to point it out herself, and that may be better or worse for her, depending on her timing. I'm going to refrain from bringing a counter-example in here since DD is a fairly atypical trigger, but I suspect that if the card in question weren't DD, the backup wouldn't be under consideration.

I think we're missing exactly what “go to combat” and the like really mean. AP is offering a shortcut to skip straight to Declare Attackers, missing a trigger in the process. Assuming no cheating, it is completely within NAP's rights at this point to back AP up to Beginning of Combat (essentially rejecting the shortcut) and THEN call out the missed trigger.

Now in the case where the attack has already been declared, NAP has to bear some responsibility for also missing the trigger. No, we don't penalize people for missing triggers they don't control BUT we're not penalizing him. I'm not a fan of deviating here.

Originally posted by Chris Lansdell:

I'm not a fan of deviating here.

Chris, How would you handle my proposed scenario above? Basically draw for turn, then turn the demon sideways for lethal? Would you really rule that the Demon is attacking and there is nothing NAP can do to prevent it?

Justin Miyashiro
A: “Go to Attacks.”
N: “Ok.”
A: “Attack with Demon.”
N: “Hold on. JUDGE!”

Justin, by the definition of the shortcut “Go to Attacks” AP is moving to the Declare Attackers step. If N is being vigilant this is where he/she needs to step in an call for a judge. I'll admit that many players don't realize exactly that they are skipping over the beginning of combat, but its an established shortcut and technically N had the briefest of opportunities to remember the trigger and react. A still gets the warning, but its a very different situation than simply attacking with the demon without getting a communication response to progress past the point of the trigger.

Part of my point with that example was that NAP had an opportunity to bring
up the trigger (since my example is the same exchange that happened in the
OP). As Gareth pointed out, the AP does not get to accelerate past the
trigger point without NAP agreeing to do so. If the trigger is that
important to NAP, then they will be aware of it (particularly if they've
been doing it for several turns) and they will be able to go back to the
point where AP rushed through.

That's not what happened in the OP. AP went through the shortcuts and
passes, asking for confirmation, and then, after both players passed into
declare attackers, AP realized the trigger was missed.

I view NAP's responsibility here as being similar to wanting to Shock a
Grizzly Bears when there's an exalted trigger hanging around. If NAP wants
to interact with that trigger, she has to do so at the right time,
otherwise she runs the risk of it not working out the way she wants. The
situation is different, I know, because very few triggers work the way DD
works, but it's what NAP needs to do to interact with the trigger that I'm
concerned with here.

Originally posted by Nicholas Brown:

by the definition of the shortcut “Go to Attacks” AP is moving to the Declare Attackers step

(re: Justin's description of an exchange)
Let's look a bit closer at the way Justin laid that out.
A: “Go to Attacks.”
N: “Ok”
Per the shortcut defined in the MTR, A has proposed skipping ahead to beginning of combat and passing priority to N; N has simply accepted that shortcut. At this point, the trigger is (supposed to be) on the stack.
A: “Attack with Demon.”
N: “Hold on. JUDGE!”
Once A tries to attack, it becomes clear that they missed their (generally detrimental) trigger. N is acting correctly.

What should have happened, after the first exchange:
A: “Demon trigger?”
N: “Activate Mutavault & sacrifice it”
or
N: “OK, no effects” (holding back an Azorius Charm, perhaps?

What Justin's been describing, and apparently confusing people with (heh), is that the MT philosophy does put some burden on the other player; they can't force missing a trigger with clever wording, and they may have to act based on an assumption that the trigger wasn't missed (perhaps while still hoping it was). And, they may have to call attention to an opponent's trigger that they'd prefer to have them miss, in order to correctly interact within the flow of the game.

d:^D

I just wanted to call out an assumption I didn't realize I'd been making (that I only figured out when working through Uncle Scott's first example there), in case others are making it as well.

A statement such as “I'm ready for combat” or “Declare attackers?” offers to keep passing priority until an opponent has priority in the beginning of combat step. Opponents are assumed to be acting then unless they specify otherwise.

I'd been mentally shortcutting it as “opponent has priority just before we're about to go to the Declare Attackers step” (ie, the stack is empty).

But the shortcut is much simpler than that, it's just opponent has priority.

If scenario #3 is:
A: “Go to Attacks.”
N: “Ok”
A: “Demon trigger?”
N: “Lemme activate my mutavault and sacrifice it”
A: Judge!

Things don't go as well for defending player. The trigger is already resolving, so he doesn't have priority to activate the mutavault. This is one of those circumstances where you have to potentially remind your opponent of their trigger (or assume they're not going to miss it) in order to do what you want. Though in this case we probably now have the problem of having to decipher was “OK” really meant.