Oh yeah, i get it :)

Thank you very much for the explanations. My english is not that bad but not that good either and i misunderstood the point. It all makes more sense to me now !

If you step in, the *worst* that can happen is that a trigger happens that should have happened.

Very much agreed.

And, it's worth pointing out - except for zone-change-causing triggers, once the trigger is missed, the opponent has the choice of whether or not to add it to the stack. So, really, the worst that happens is that we've reminded the player about their future triggers. A minor bit of coaching, in exchange for a warning.

Actually, that could be used as another heuristic for detrimental/not generally detrimental - given the choice, will the average opponent want to have the trigger get missed, or will they want the trigger to resolve?

The average opponent would want Akroan Horse's first trigger to be missed, given the rest of the card. (not generally detrimental)
The average opponent would want Desecration Demon's trigger to be not missed, giving them the option of sacrificing a creature to prevent an attack or block.

In general, if we see catch a Sidsi trigger being missed, I expect the opponent will *not* want the trigger to happen, given that the mill can create zombies. For that matter, in a format with delve, I don't think self-mill is generally detrimental. i.e., apply the vanilla test to Nyx Weaver. Would a 2/3 flying for 3 see play? probably not. Would a 2/3 flying for 3 with ‘self-mill 2 per turn’ see play? more likely.

Originally posted by Talin Salway:

that could be used as another heuristic for detrimental/not generally detrimental - given the choice, will the average opponent want to have the trigger get missed, or will they want the trigger to resolve?

Tempting though that may be, please, don't.

I recommend referring to the Missed Trigger Guide, in our wiki.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Yes, you have to separate the trigger itself from the rest of the card - and there are plenty of examples of that.

I thought that we were allowed to look at the trigger in the context of the card. (That's why Emrakul's shuffle trigger is detrimental and Gaea's Blessing;s trigger is non-detrimental).

Are we no longer asking the question, “Is this card worse (less playable) because it has this triggered ability?”
If we are no longer asking that question, why is that?

I'd argue that there is a real cost to giving warnings due to pedantic reasoning from a player perception perspective.

Since we are on the topic of detrimental triggers, I am looking at Eidolon of Great Revelry and Ruric Thar, the Unbowed where one is detrimental while the other is not. Why the difference?

Do we keep to the guidelines or should we based our judgement on what William mentioned above?

Originally posted by Daniel Chew:

Since we are on the topic of detrimental triggers, I am looking at Eidolon of Great Revelry and Ruric Thar, the Unbowed where one is detrimental while the other is not. Why the difference?

Do we keep to the guidelines or should we based our judgement on what William mentioned above?

That was a mistake. Ruric Thar's ability is symmetrical just like the Eidolon's. I've updated the wiki. Thanks for catching that.

I would've liked Akroan Horse's first ability (“When Akroan Horse enters the battlefield, an opponent gains control of it.”) to be detrimental. Because I knew of that one, my guess would've been that Sidisi's first ability would be not detrimental before reading this thread.

You can say it doesn't matter, but it still irks XD

Originally posted by William Anderson:

Scott Marshall
Yes, you have to separate the trigger itself from the rest of the card - and there are plenty of examples of that.

I thought that we were allowed to look at the trigger in the context of the card. (That's why Emrakul's shuffle trigger is detrimental and Gaea's Blessing;s trigger is non-detrimental).

Are we no longer asking the question, “Is this card worse (less playable) because it has this triggered ability?”
If we are no longer asking that question, why is that?

I'd argue that there is a real cost to giving warnings due to pedantic reasoning from a player perception perspective.

I think that separating that sentence from the rest of Scott's comment is not giving it the necessary context. Especially when considering his other comments. That is, taking a step back and considering the trigger in and of itself. That means avoiding too strict considerations of a specific game state, and a broader “What is the effect of the trigger?”

Is Emrakul's trigger usually detrimental? Yes, if you just consider the normal process for getting a creature onto the battlefield versus the generally cheaper process of getting it from the graveyard back to the battlefield. Is Sidisi's trigger usually detrimental? Yes, because it generally makes cards in accessible to the player. Don't consider that certain cards benefit from this, like delve. Cards in the graveyard are usually not as desirable as cards in hand or cards to be drawn.

Yes, this could produce some situations that are counter intuitive. But the number of times that happens is pretty small. (Sidisi is 1 of 84 cards in Khans with a triggered ability by my count, or about 1% of that population; let alone all the cards with triggers present in Standard.) If you rule “differently” than the “normal understanding”, that's okay. It's something of an artifact of policy for these narrow situations.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

I think that separating that sentence from the rest of Scott's comment is not giving it the necessary context.

Thank you, Brian - and you're right, that's a horrible misrepresentation of what I was saying! That line was referring to examples like Sidisi or Nyx Weaver, where the overall context of the card explains why you'd want to live with the drawback - i.e., the detrimental trigger.

Accept that there will be times when you or I might expect a specific trigger to be detrimental, but it's not … or vice-versa. This is why we should (a) refer to that Missed Trigger Guide, from the wiki, and (b) question the ones that don't make sense (as Daniel did, above - good catch!).

Daniel Chew
Do we keep to the guidelines or should we based our judgement on what William mentioned above?

Discussion forums - like this one - will often have ideas put forth that are worth consideration; after all, Judges are a bright bunch of people (the Exam(s) kind of ensure that). However, there's a difference between even the best suggestion and an ‘O’fficial answer.

This is mentioned in the Forum Protocol, but I'll repeat: Official sources include NetReps (myself, Callum and Nathan, etc.), Wizards employees (Andy Heckt, Scott Larabee, Matt Tabak as the most frequent posters), and a bunch of hard-working Forum Moderators (identified as such in their profile pic).

TL;DR - yes, keep to the guidelines. Using your judgment, seek understanding of the guidelines. Point out apparent issues - sometimes, we'll explain why the Guide is correct; sometimes, we'll correct the Guide.

d:^D

Are there any ‘O’fficial guidelines for determining whether a trigger is “usually considered detrimental for the controlling player”? Should the missed trigger guide on the judge wiki be considered an ‘O’fficial guideline for determining whether a trigger is usually detrimental?

The IPG doesn't elaborate on the meaning of detrimental.

So far, I've found Toby Elliott's guidelines on the evolving missed trigger policy. Here's some hopefully-not-too-out-of-context-quotes. From Part 2:

For one, if the trigger didn’t exist, would the card be played?

and

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

and Part 3:

The idea is that in most common game situations, this is a trigger you’d be happier not having resolve.

and

The guidelines are the same as before – ask yourself heuristic questions like “Would this card be better without the ability?” or “In most game situations, would I be glad to have this trigger” or “Did Wizards put this on the card to try to preempt some form of shenanigan?”.

—

Akroan Horse's first trigger, on it's own, seems detrimental, but the context of the rest of the card makes it useful (even ignoring the rest of the deck & metagame).

In the same way, Sidsi's trigger does cost you (you're closer to being milled out), but in the context of the card, it's useful, since it will create zombies - this isn't dependent on the types of decks it's played in or against, it's entirely contained within that card.

If Sidsi didn't mill, I expect that she would be cheaper, not more expensive.

But given that I disagree, I'm probably misinterpreting these guidelines, or emphasizing the wrong ones.

Another perspective: If milling yourself is detrimental because it brings you closer to losing by decking yourself, why isn't drawing cards detrimental because it brings you closer to losing by decking yourself?
If Sidisi's trigger makes her harder to cast because she depletes a finite resource that loses you the game if fully depleted, the same is true for shaman of spring .
Is the difference that we count the hand as ‘beneficial zone’ and the graveyard as ‘detrimental/neutral zone’, or is the difference the existence of opponent-mill cards as win condition?


Other question: Are there cards where a self-mill trigger is actually detrimental in practice? (Genuine question, I just can't think of any right now.)
Necromancer's Assistant vs Warpath Ghoul also says beneficial to me.

Edited Toby Hazes (Oct. 14, 2014 03:48:06 AM)

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Is Emrakul's trigger usually detrimental? Yes, if you just consider the normal process for getting a creature onto the battlefield versus the generally cheaper process of getting it from the graveyard back to the battlefield. Is Sidisi's trigger usually detrimental? Yes, because it generally makes cards in accessible to the player. Don't consider that certain cards benefit from this, like delve. Cards in the graveyard are usually not as desirable as cards in hand or cards to be drawn.

We consider Sidisi's trigger to be detrimental because you're being denied resources despite other cards being able to benefit from it, and yet we consider Emrakul's trigger detrimental because even though it's providing extra resources, it disallows other cards from benefiting from it? To me, this sounds a bit contradictory and double-standardy. If we consider Sidisi's ability in a vacuum regardless of other cards that can benefit from her ability, why not do the same for Emrakul?

This whole thing is completely ridiculous. In any possible colloquial
definition it's very clear that sidisi's ability is beneficial and is a
reason to put the card in your deck. Can't we just go with that? I think
talin said it really well.
On Oct 13, 2014 9:25 PM, “Jon Nauert” <forum-12863-d1a4@apps.magicjudges.org>
wrote:

So to go a little more in-depth in the problems I see, this is a clash of the theoretical and the practical:

Life totals are easy. Increase is good, decrease is bad. Things that damage you or make you pay life are detrimental. In this case the cards back this up by being costed as such. (Night's Whisper vs Divination).

Libraries are not so clear cut. Whereas life points you lose just go away, cards you lose from your library go somewhere else. You can't just say that decreasing your library is bad, because that would make draw bad.

So it depends on where the cards go to. Now abviously draw is good, again as seen on card costing: Elvish Visionary vs Cylian Elf. So are putting cards from your library onto the battlefield or stack. Exiling cards from your library is obviously bad (Not a lot of great examples. Leveler vs Stone Golem? Things like Arc-Slogger and Thought Lash clearly use it as a cost).

That leaves us with self-mill. Beneficial or detrimental? It isn't as obviously good as drawing cards, but it isn't as obviously bad as exiling cards. So I would say, why not let the cards speak for themselves again?
Necromancer's Assistant vs Warpath Ghoul
Armored Skaab vs Wavecrash Triton
Millikin vs Manakin

The cards clearly cost self-mill as something beneficial. If R&D would agree with the theoretical assessment that it's detrimental because it denies resources then wouldn't they cost it as a detrimental ability? This has nothing to do with corner cases or context or other abilities. Standard rule is that self-mill is costed as something beneficial. So why not make it a beneficial trigger? Is there any card with a self-mill trigger that would look really weird as being beneficial?

Edited Toby Hazes (Oct. 14, 2014 07:11:27 AM)

^ 3 cheers for Toby Hazes. That's a really good argument.

2014-10-14 5:48 GMT-04:00 Toby Hazes <forum-12863-4be4@apps.magicjudges.org>
: