These are two scenarios that I came across while playing at the recent Grand Prix in San Antonio. I would like someone to tell me what the difference is.

Scenario 1: Player A controls Eidolon of Blossoms, they activate Nykthos for 5 green mana plus get 1 black mana from a Llanowar Wastes. They use 4G + 1B to cast Doomwke Giant. Without acknowledging the Eidolon trigger, they continue and use the last G floating to cast Elvish Mystic, then they say, “And I'll draw a card off of Eidolon.” Player B stops them and says something like, “You didn't announce your trigger, then continued play by casting a different spell, you've missed your trigger.” The judge is called over and its ruled that Player A (the one with Eidolon) has in fact missed his draw trigger and doesn't get it.

Scenario 2: Player A controls Seeker of the Way. That player casts Chained to the Rocks, exiling her opponents Polukranos. They then cast Lightning Strike, killing something I don't remember what. The dialogue then went something like this:
Player A - “Combat?”
Player B - “Sure.”
Player A - “Attack for 4 with Seeker.”
Player B says they've missed their triggers because they didn't acknowledge them when they happened. The judge is called over and it is ruled that its an acceptable shortcut to just say how much they are attacking for and that that constitutes acknowledging the Seeker triggers.

I have a problem with this. Both Player A's in each scenario have made the same mistake. They both failed to acknowledge their triggers and moved past them by casting other spells, meaning they've missed them. Yet, somehow it is acceptable for one player to “shortcut” certain triggers but not other players in a different situation can't. Doesn't this feel like we're getting into muddy territory by “on the fly” classifying which triggers are acceptable to shortcut and which are not. Also, it allows for players in something like Scenario 2 to legitimately forget triggers, then remember afterwards and say to themselves, “Oh it's ok, I can just say attack for 4, and everything's cool” even though they know in their own mind they missed them. I don't know how you'd prove that, but I would still like for there not to be what I see as a double standard.
Thoughts?

Would a second read on IPGs, GPE - Missed Trigger, change your mind a bit?? :)

Jarred, when it comes to things like Prowess, it doesn't need to be mentioned at every spell cast. It needs to be acknowledged at the very first moment that it becomes relevant. Most of the time that will be in combat, but can be considered relevant in the main phase (or whenever) when players start to ask questions regarding power and toughness.

Edited Ronny Alvarado (Dec. 2, 2014 03:26:02 AM)

Jarred, when it comes to things like Prowess, it doesn't need to be mentioned at every spell cast. It needs to be acknowledged at the very first moment that it becomes relevant. Most of the time that will be in combat, but can be considered relevant in the main phase (or whenever) when players start to ask questions regarding power and toughness.


In reference to the above:
I understand the triggers when it's relevant business, but it still seems unnecessary. Plus, it puts newer players at that much more of a disadvantage because they don't understand the difference. Why have the ambiguity of the “different” kinds of triggers when it could be as simple as, you have a trigger, announce it when it happens so this kind confusion doesn't happen in the future. I'm not going penalize players who “announce when relevant” it just seems to me that this “announcing when relevant” just serves to make the game state that much more confusing when it is simple enough to announce triggers “properly”.

Originally posted by Jarred Ruggles:

I understand the triggers when it's relevant business, but it still seems unnecessary. Plus, it puts newer players at that much more of a disadvantage because they don't understand the difference. Why have the ambiguity of the “different” kinds of triggers when it could be as simple as, you have a trigger, announce it when it happens so this kind confusion doesn't happen in the future. I'm not going penalize players who “announce when relevant” it just seems to me that this “announcing when relevant” just serves to make the game state that much more confusing when it is simple enough to announce triggers “properly”.

A card should have ended up in Player A's hand before the Elvish Mystic was cast, and the fact that one did not is evidence that the trigger was missed. Player A did not have to say “Eidolon of Blossoms trigger,” but rather had to draw a card from the trigger before it would have had to resolve (before, for example, moving to combat or casting a sorcery-speed spell). The Seeker of the Way trigger is assumed to have resolved until the player who controls the trigger fails to demonstrate awareness of it in some way, because its resolution is invisible. Common to both of these examples is that the player does not have to explicitly announce the trigger, but instead demonstrate awareness of it before it would affect the visible game state. Having players robotically announce all triggers, no matter how transparent their effect, makes for a poor gameplay experience.

Edited Jacob Milicic (Dec. 2, 2014 04:23:03 AM)

The short answer is it simplifies an already very complex game. If your opponent ever wants to be sure if it's power and toughness they may ask “has it recived any power or toughness boosts this turn” as that is free information. The game is complex enough already so we try to simplify things where we can so not having to announce your trigger until it becomes relevant (which more often then not is when it goes on the stack) helps accomplish this. Yes it can lead to people who were not aware at the actual time but remembered when it was time to attack but the rules say that's perfectly acceptable.

Originally posted by Jarred Ruggles:

Jarred, when it comes to things like Prowess, it doesn't need to be mentioned at every spell cast. It needs to be acknowledged at the very first moment that it becomes relevant. Most of the time that will be in combat, but can be considered relevant in the main phase (or whenever) when players start to ask questions regarding power and toughness.


In reference to the above:
I understand the triggers when it's relevant business, but it still seems unnecessary. Plus, it puts newer players at that much more of a disadvantage because they don't understand the difference. Why have the ambiguity of the “different” kinds of triggers when it could be as simple as, you have a trigger, announce it when it happens so this kind confusion doesn't happen in the future. I'm not going penalize players who “announce when relevant” it just seems to me that this “announcing when relevant” just serves to make the game state that much more confusing when it is simple enough to announce triggers “properly”.

I understand your argument, and have dealt with plenty of players who have been frustrated with the current missed trigger policy for exactly this reason. There are areas where it falls short, and I totally agree that Exalted/Prowess style creature buffs are one of the major ones. However, having worked with other versions of the policy, I'm extremely confident that this way is better overall.

Basically, the problem is that ‘it is simple enough to announce triggers “properly”.’ is just not a correct statement. Too many players make too many mistakes with the “technically correct” timings of their triggers for us to rely on a policy where all triggers need to be announced exactly when they trigger. This is even more true for new players, who often have little grasp of statebased actions, priority and the stack etc. It's correct that the current policy leaves new players at a disadvantage, as pretty much every policy does (experience -> knowledge -> advantage), but the alternative would also leave them at a disadvantage - probably a bigger one.

Jarred, what you are suggesting was in fact already the policy a few years
ago. Here's an example: at the avacyn restored game day, a guy played
craterhoof behemoth and attacked with everything, his opponent blocked. The
guy said “take a million” but the opponent said (correctly) that since the
trigger hadn't been announced, it didn't take effect. Needless to say, the
guy was not happy, as he was fully aware of the trigger, just not aware of
the requirement to announce it.
On Dec 1, 2014 6:58 PM, “Jarred Ruggles” <

I would encourage reading:
http://wiki.magicjudges.org/en/w/Annotated_IPG/Missed_Trigger which goes
into painful detail about the missed Trigger policy

Scenario 1: This may or may not be a missed trigger. If player A goes
“Giant, Elf, Blossom Trigger” in quick succession, I would use OOOS and
give the man his trigger. The IPG specifically calls out that OOOS may be
applicable in missed trigger situations. Now, if Player A goes “Giant.
<pause for responses, then resolves Giant. Pause> Elf <pause for
responses, elf resolves> Oh and my Blossom Trigger” Nope. that's missed.
Drawing a card is a visible effect, so missing it follows one set of
criteria.

In Scenario 2, we have an non-visible effect, a creature pump. It follows
a different set of rules because…well, when it followed the same set of
rules players complained…violently. So we changed the Missed Trigger
rules to reflect how players actually play, which is why the list of
conditions to miss the trigger seem so convoluted, but it actually all fits
one consistent theme

The trigger happened until you have evidence it didnt.

So in the case of the card draw…not drawing the card at the right time is
evidence the trigger didnt happen. In the case of prowess, because the
pump is “invisible” there is no evidence that it did/didnt happen. So
assume it did, until you have proof one way or the other. “take 4” is
proof that it happened. “take 2” is proof that it didnt.

“ Plus, it puts newer players at that much more of a disadvantage because they don't understand the difference.”

From MTR 4.1:“ The philosophy of the DCI is that a player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the rules of a game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning. Players are under no obligation to assist their opponents in playing the game. Regardless of anything else, players are expected to treat their opponents politely and with respect. Failure to do so may lead to Unsporting Conduct
penalties.”

The key difference between these two examples is a “change in the visible game state.” A drawn card is visible; triggers that make you draw cards must be announced and resolved when they trigger, or they've been missed. Gaining +1/+1 and lifelink off the prowess and other trigger on a Seeker of the Way is not visible; it need not be acknowledged until such details are relevant to the game state, which is usually when damage is being dealt.

I talked with many players about this at my last PTQ, where I reminded players that at Competitive REL the power and toughness of a triggered Seeker of the Way is derived information. It's advantageous to keep track of such things if your opponent has not! Drawing a card, however, is not derived; hand size is public knowledge.


From IPG 2.1: "A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution: The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved."

Edited John Trout (Dec. 14, 2014 08:29:28 PM)

In my opinion there is certainly a difference because the eidolon trigger causes a change in the visible game state. If the player had a pause he has certainly has missed his trigger.

However, the way this scenario was explained sounds like player A announced all of his actions in one sentence. I would call it a reasonable Out of order sequencing and let the man draw his card.

Originally posted by Clynn Wilkinson:

However, the way this scenario was explained sounds like player A announced all of his actions in one sentence. I would call it a reasonable Out of order sequencing and let the man draw his card.

I don't really agree with that interpretation of the scenario as described in the OP, but it is totally possible that OOOS could apply to similar scenarios depending on exactly what a player says as they perform these actions.

Whether or not it's OOOS really depends on “You had to be there.” When I take a call like this, I try to get the players to reenact what actually happened to try to make a determination. But the one sentence of ASCII text in the original post isn't enough to decide.

Originally posted by John Trout:

Drawing a card, however, is not derived; hand size is public knowledge.

Be careful. The number of cards in your hand is also derived information, not free information. The reason these triggers are considered missed at different times doesn't necessarily have to do with derived vs. free information–it has to do with the types of impact the triggers have on the game, as specified in IPG 2.1 (as you've correctly pointed out).