Howdy folks, and welcome back to another edition of Knowledge Pool. This week we have a Silver scenario, so L2s should wait until Friday to jump into the discussion.

Acacia and Naomi are playing in a Legacy 5k. Acacia controls a Sylvan Library. Acacia draws for turn, resolves Sylvan Library's ability and puts two cards back on top of her library. Acacia casts Shardless Agent and says “Does Shardless Agent resolve?” Naomi answers “Yes, it resolves.” Acacia then flips over the top two cards of her library, revealing a Misty Rainforest and an Abrupt Decay. Naomi calls for a judge and explains that she thinks Acacia missed her cascade trigger. What do you do?

Edited Joe Klopchic (Sept. 20, 2018 01:08:14 AM)

This looks to me like a case of Out of Order Sequencing. Acacia asked Naomi if they had responses before Shardless Agent resolved. Upon NAP saying no, AP began to resolve the stack, starting with the Cascade trigger

I believe Acacia has missed the trigger. While this trigger doesn't “target” it does make a change to the “game state” by adding a spell to the stack on top of Shardless Agent. Because the cards are known to both players that are in exile from the cascade trigger being resolved after being missed… …we do not have a HCE. We also don't have looking at extra cards, because those cards were in a known location due to Library. There's nothing “against the rules” of a player revealing things to the opponent from a hidden zone provided they have reason to know it.

Originally posted by Daniel Woolson:

This looks to me like a case of Out of Order Sequencing. Acacia asked Naomi if they had responses before Shardless Agent resolved. Upon NAP saying no, AP began to resolve the stack, starting with the Cascade trigger

I'd be 100% in this camp if she had acknowledge the trigger in any way. Or if after saying does “it” resolve, she cascaded before moving Shardless from the stack to the battlefield. I would be nervous about the potential for fishing for a counter (even though she knows the spell she wants to cast via cascade is “Cannot be countered” …as she could be fishing with the ambiguous language of “does IT resolve”.

Mark, what indication do we have that Shardless Agent is no longer on the stack?

Sent from my iPhone

Originally posted by Originally posted by Mark Mason:

if she had acknowledge the trigger in any way

She acknowledged the trigger in resolving it, thus proving its existence in the same way that prowess isn't missed until you assign damage.

Originally posted by Originally posted by Mark Mason:

she cascaded before moving Shardless from the stack to the battlefield

How do we physically represent the stack vs the battlefield? There is no visible area for the stack and while some players will place a card on the stack in the center between the two players, just as many will place a creature onto the battlefield before it resolves.

Edited Daniel Woolson (June 21, 2017 01:57:16 PM)

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

Mark, what indication do we have that Shardless Agent is no longer on the stack?

Sent from my iPhone

That A asked, “Does SHARLESS AGENT resolve?” Then got a yes. That means priority has passed. Once player says “yes”, it's on the battlefield (there are no other continuous effects about which we know that might make it die at sbas)

Originally posted by Daniel Woolson:

Originally posted by Originally posted by Mark Mason:

if she had acknowledge the trigger in any way

She acknowledged the trigger in resolving it, thus proving its existence in the same way that prowess isn't missed until you assign damage.

Originally posted by Originally posted by Mark Mason:

she cascaded before moving Shardless from the stack to the battlefield

How do we physically represent the stack vs the battlefield? There is no visible area for the stack and while some players will place a card on the stack in the center between the two players, just as many will place a creature onto the battlefield before it resolves.

I mean acknowledge it “verbally”. Her “non-verbal” acknowledgement AFTER asking “Does Sharless Agent Resolve” means she pass priority AFTER that would have left the stack.

Reminder:

Originally posted by Joe Klopchic:

This week we have a Silver scenario, so L2s should wait until Friday to jump into the discussion.

Originally posted by Mark Mason:

I mean acknowledge it “verbally”.

Does the IPG specify that acknowledgments must be verbal?

Originally posted by Daniel Woolson:

Originally posted by Mark Mason:

I mean acknowledge it “verbally”.

Does the IPG specify that acknowledgments must be verbal?

Of course not. But it does require it be acknowledged the first time it becomes relevant. (which can be a very different standard if a trigger requires a target or a physical action such as changing life totals or drawing a card).

It's relevant before Shardless resolves. That's the question asked, “Does Shardless Agent resolve?”. While the trigger is invisible, the resolution of casting a spell is not.

There seem to be only three options here. Simple Out of Order Sequencing. Or missed trigger. Finally, since the L@EC fix seems to be the most sensible here, I can see an argument for that (however, this player knew those top two cards from Library,…)

The first time it would become relevant it is as it resolves, which AP clearly does.
It follows the same line of logic as the combat shortcut. AP asks “combat?” NAP says “ok” AP says “<card> BoC trigger targeting X.” There's no missed trigger in that example and in the same vein there's no missed trigger in this

As someone that's not a judge yet and still studying for the test, I thought I'd take a stab at it if I may. I apologize in advance if I'm way off base, that's why I'm studying and reading this thread. Thank you all for your insightful discussions. I really enjoy these threads.

SO.. my thoughts based on the discussion so far are that issue is around the question “Does it resolve” Ultimately, Naomi is saying that when Acacia asked if it resolves, then it's done rather than being able to continue with Cascade. In my mind, Acacia was asking if Naomi wanted to cast a counter or anything on the stack. But ultimately it's all about interpretation and communication. The question is… is the card still on the stack or is it in the battlefield. If it's in the battlefield, then she missed the trigger before she put it there. If it's not in the battlefield and still on the stack, then she can continue with the Cascade trigger. My gut is that she didn't miss the trigger and there is no error. At the very most, possibly a communication error if it were stretched.

The other question is whether Naomi should get a warning for a minor Unsporting Conduct for inappropriately demanding a penalty for her opponent. I feel like Naomi is trying to work the system a bit by using semantics.

Okay.. .that was my stab at it.

Also a pending judge
I agree that asking if it resolves is a definite passing of priority, which can only be legally passed once triggers have been put on the stack that should happen at that time. It is also relevant that the priority is passed before putting the trigger on stack because there would otherwise be up to two objects on the stack for nap to respond to.
It is unfortunate that many ignorant players will do this not understanding that it even is a missed trigger, but there is no way to guarantee that it was ignorance so it must simply be missed at comp rel. I would focus on education for the ap here, but if it was reg rel I would backup and put cascade on the stack if my investigation led me to believe it was only ignorance of the way the stack works.

Originally posted by Lesley Winfield:

The other question is whether Naomi should get a warning for a minor Unsporting Conduct for inappropriately demanding a penalty for her opponent. I feel like Naomi is trying to work the system a bit by using semantics.

I'd be careful with going too far on this. There's a major difference between “judge, I think my opponent missed their trigger” and "judge, my opponent missed their trigger. You should give them a game loss." It's the second sort of thing that warrants a USC penalty, not the first.

On the scenario, it's unfortunate that we usually ignore the investigation aspect of judging in KP, since it seems like this situation could really benefit from a quick investigation into how the players have been communicating.