Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

Self-mill is detrimental because when we talked with R&D, they added it to the list. We said “are you sure?” and they said yes.

Akroan Horse's first ability should be detrimental. Abe's team does a fantastic job with the Trigger Guides, but it's challenging to do them all at once and the occasional wacky one slips through.

Many cards have other abilities that make generally detrimental triggers into a positive; the game of Magic is designed around that. They are still things that we should be watching out for.

I am a big fan of the costing argument that was brought up earlier. Perhaps it's worth having that discussion with R&D. Given what you had in your original article on the subject, it certainly would seem that the ability increases rather than decreases the cost of most cards that it's on, which seems like Development think that it's beneficial, even if Design do not.

From this thread and the Tournament-report, what I am basically gathering is:

When trying to figure out if a trigger is generally detrimental, look if it is generally played instead of its trigger - if so, the trigger is detrimental. If it is generally played because of its trigger, it isnt.
Also, if the card mills yourself, it is detrimental (because R&D said so).

Or, in other words, selfmilling is a curveball/exception that we just have to accept until further notice.

Is that about correct?

(Un)Fortunately, no.
I also thought exactly the same at first, which is why I made a big deal out of it, but it turned out that there are more curveballs like that.
Akroan Horse's first ability is detrimental, even though the card would clearly be worse without it.
Forced Fruition is detrimental, even though it's the only reason you would play the card at all.
So ‘fixing’ self-mill would not solve everything. So the new conclusion I got is:

The rule of thumb has unfortunately multiple exceptions.

Which is fine because rules of thumb don't have to be correct all the time by definition, but I really liked it so I would've liked if it was followed more close to the letter instead.
Rather than looking at practical/strategic implications of abilities, how is it played, how much does it cost, etc, the trigger guidelines look at a set of theoretical abilities and label those detrimental or not, regardless of what card it's on or what numbers it has (how much mill/draw for example). This has the advantage of being clearly defined, whereas the first could be rather fuzzy.

Edited Toby Hazes (Oct. 24, 2014 03:33:15 AM)

The way to look at it is to take the ability off the card and look at it like that if the effect is doing something unwanted it's generally detrimental, if it might do something bad depending on the value of something it's not generally detrimental, everything else is not generally detrimental

The problem with self-mill is that it doesn't follow that rule either. As shown by the costing argument even in a vacuum it does something ‘wanted’.

Well, depends on how you see vacuum. If there are not other factors and you mill yourself enough times, you will lose, that's the only possible outcome.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

The rule of thumb has unfortunately multiple exceptions.

Which is fine because rules of thumb don't have to be correct all the time by definition, but I really liked it so I would've liked if it was followed more close to the letter instead.

I feel, in many ways, that the “rule of thumb” has also been oversold/over emphasized to the point that itself has become a bit on the “usually detrimental” side. Because people have focused on it to the exclusion of the broader evaluation of just looking at a trigger and considering an objective evaluation of its effect on the game, or its mere presence in the game.

The “rule of thumb” was great to help teach and promulgate a new policy… But the policy has matured a lot in practice, and I feel it is best to not rely too heavily upon it at this point. At least not for getting a broader understanding of policy. (So it remains a bit useful as a starting point, but not an ending point.)

Toby Hazes
Rather than looking at practical/strategic implications of abilities, how is it played, how much does it cost, etc, the trigger guidelines look at a set of theoretical abilities and label those detrimental or not, regardless of what card it's on or what numbers it has (how much mill/draw for example). This has the advantage of being clearly defined, whereas the first could be rather fuzzy.

I feel this is much closer to the real “meat” of the policy.

When considering resources as objectively as is possible and reasonable, and the effect of a trigger on the game, you do need to consider a smaller set of factors and get away from how the abilities have been played. Because leaning too closely on strategy does change the dynamic on how the penalty aspect is handled. Because judges need to be more neutral in approaching a situation and not consider those strategic or tactical elements on whether to issue the Warning or not.

We allow the opponent to generally dictate the remedy (as a nod to considering how the trigger may actually affect a live game), but the penalty (or lack of penalty) is a consideration for judges when it comes to evaluating whether we need to keep an eye on a trigger being missed and whether it is detrimental to the game if it gets missed repeatedly. And since this can require judgment, we left room for people to apply that judgment in practice.

Certainly it can be challenging with some edge cases, but those should be relatively rare. For triggers with that are highly prominent in actual decks, the Wiki and the forum help with consistency in approaching these situations. Still, the policy is still reasonably tolerant of such situations if the “wrong” ruling is made.

The Missed Trigger Guide is maintained because any attempt at a “Rule of Thumb” has many exceptions.

So, when faced with a “detrimental or not” conundrum:

1. refer to the MT Guide;
   
2. search your memory for recent learnings from that MT Guide;
   
3. apply your understanding of “generally detrimental”, as best you can.
   

d:^D

P.S. - it seems that many are still trying to define a Rule of Thumb that has no exceptions; I encourage you to find another focus for your enthusiasm!

But if we are not looking at practical/strategic implications of abilities, but just at the trigger itself and if it puts me closer or further to winning, how can Emrakul's shuffle-trigger be considered detrimental (as it is, seemingly)? Because saying ‘he (almost) can’t be reanimated' is a practical/strategic implication.

I get that selfmilling is considered detrimental because in the purely theoretical/gamerules-sense, it puts you closer to loosing.
But then doing the exact opposite of selfmilling - like a shuffle-trigger - puts you further away from loosing in the same sense.

I just don't see the consistency we value so high if two things that do exactly opposing things in the sense of the rules are both considered detrimental. Either we do take strategic and/or practical implications into account - in which case e.g. Sidisi's trigger would not be detrimental, and there is a consistency-problem with that because it requires us to interpret a trigger - or we don't. But if we don't, then in my opinion we should not at all - in neither direction. In which case an eldrazi's shuffle-trigger cannot be generally detrimental, because it only would be if the player has ways to reanimate it (which is obviously strategic/practical) or use his graveyard as a resource (again, strategic/practical in the literally same way saying selfmill is advantageous).

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

But if we are not looking at practical/strategic implications of abilities, but just at the trigger itself and if it puts me closer or further to winning, how can Emrakul's shuffle-trigger be considered detrimental (as it is, seemingly)? Because saying 'he (almost) can't be reanimated' is a practical/strategic implication.

Well, I would caution that the consideration of “closer/further from winning” isn't an absolute consideration, but rather one way to look at the ability. Especially if you recognize that “closer/further from winning” can too closely align to a player perspective on the game, which is more internal to an actual game, and not necessarily an external and objective look at the game and the effect of an ability upon the game.

This can be a spectrum, not a comparison of absolutes.

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

In which case an eldrazi's shuffle-trigger cannot be generally detrimental, because it only would be if the player has ways to reanimate it (which is obviously strategic/practical) or use his graveyard as a resource (again, strategic/practical in the literally same way saying selfmill is advantageous).

As Scott said earlier, Emrakul's ability is just weird. Because the evaluation of “usually detrimental” looks at things in a very different way than most triggers do. Yes, the conclusion of “usually detrimental” compares the cost to cast the creature versus the cost to reanimate the creature. That has aspects of how a player might take advantage of the situation, but it does also objectively consider certain design elements when it comes to card. It's an odd dynamic to consider, given how the one evaluation “trumps” the other.

As I said earlier when first discussing Emrakul, there are strong arguments as to whether the ability is truly “usually detrimental” or not. I can only state my view on the “why” here, and that the conclusion is not an absolute. That's generally true of such fringe situations, and why the policy is tolerant of such differing opinions in the absence of a consistency element. (And if Emrakul wasn't such a prominent card, there might not be such a conclusion. But it is prominent, and that's the prevailing view on the trigger.)

Allright, I guess I'll just have to accept it as is, because I still do not understand why in one case we say this was (clearly) designed to make the card weaker, so it's detrimental, but on the other hand we cannot say it was (clearly) designed to make the card stronger, so it's not detrimental.

Thanks for trying to clarify it for me, but it seems until something changes in this policy, I will not be able to (fully) grasp the logic behind it.

Originally posted by Philip Körte:

Allright, I guess I'll just have to accept it as is, because I still do not understand why in one case we say this was (clearly) designed to make the card weaker, so it's detrimental, but on the other hand we cannot say it was (clearly) designed to make the card stronger, so it's not detrimental.

Thanks for trying to clarify it for me, but it seems until something changes in this policy, I will not be able to (fully) grasp the logic behind it.

I hear your frustration. The policy we have is the result of a lot of discussion for a very complicated game with a lot of different stakeholders. Each of those stakeholders have various lines of thinking (and therefor different logic and judgment that enables those lines of thinking) which don't always align very well. The policy attempts to balance those considerations as much as possible, even if it seems that certain concerns “win” out and make some conclusions a bit contradictory.

The good thing is that we can discuss the application of the policy, even in edge situations, and thus educate each other on how better to apply policy and/or clarify some situations as necessary. Even if we don't always come to the same conclusions. :)

Two points that may be relevant:
- On the detrimentality of milling: maybe R&D is thinking about Limited. Losing to an empty library is much more likely there, especially with a dedicated self-milling deck, and strategically missing a trigger could be a reasonable way of cheating.
- On the symmetry between Emrakul and self-milling : Emrakul puts herself back to the library, whereas milling is putting random cards from the library to the graveyard. I don't think anyone would argue that ETB Entomb is beneficial, or that it relies on the fail to find clause.