Yes, I know that title is not exactly clear, but I don't think I can describe my question both precisely and in a few words.

Noelle and Alexandria are playing in a Standard PTQ. Alexandria controls both Keranos, God of Storms and Thassa, God of the Sea. She silently untaps for her turn, reveals the top card of her library while pointing at Keranos and then suddenly remembers about Thassa and says “I'll scry this to the bottom”.
Noelle, who has very clearly seen that Alexandria was actually revealing her draw for the turn when she remembered about her upkeep trigger, calls you. When you arrive to the table Alexandria says that she indeed had initially forgotten about Thassa, but she hadn't taken any action indicating that it was too late and she knows she's allowed to reveal to her opponent any information that she can see (namely, the top card of her library during the scry trigger), so she thought she could still have the trigger.

What should we rule in this case? My gut feeling is that Alexandria gets her trigger, but on the other hand it feels slightly wrong to reward her for not being clear about what step she's in: if she had said “Untap, draw” before revealing, it would clearly be too late for Thassa to trigger.

I would ask her “Why did you flip up the top card?”. If she says “For Keranos”, then she missed the trigger.

It would be very hard for Alexandria to convince me, that she was really
revealing scryed card “because she can.”

If she would tell me, that she was initially revealing for Keranos, but
realized she didn't scry yet, I would say she missed the trigger, since she
moved past the last possible moment for the trigger to resolve (she took an
action in draw step).

But if she tells me, that she only revealed the scryed card and is still in
her upkeep, I would investiate it, and provided that she wouldn't be able
to convince me that she really usually reveals scryed cards to opponents,
she would be very close to Disqualification (lying to judge in order to
gain advantage).

Disqualification for cheating is also possible in the first case (she tells
the truth), but it would be easier for her to convince me, that she didn't
know it is too late to remember the trigger.


2014-05-01 8:25 GMT+02:00 Sean Hunt <forum-9825-a8b1@apps.magicjudges.org>:

If she hadn't pointed to Keranos, I'd say Alexandria has a point. However, if both players are in agreement that she pointed to Keranos, then she is unambiguously in her draw step, and applying Keranos's replacement effect. She has missed Thassa's trigger, and should put Keranos's trigger on the stack.

If stories are changing, a DQ investigation may be pending, but as long as the story remains, “I remembered it and thought it wasn't too late,” my answer is just, “You indicated that the game has moved on to the draw step by pointing at Keranos. You have missed the trigger.”

No penalty; the opponent may (likely won't) put the Thassa trigger on the stack.

Originally posted by Sean Hunt:

I would ask her “Why did you flip up the top card?”. If she says “For Keranos”, then she missed the trigger.

I would second this especially since in the scenario she pointed at Keranos and did nothing to acknowledge Thassa until after the card was revealed.

The underlying question is still there though… philosophically, you don't miss a trigger until you do something that you can't do until afterwards (roughly). Missed trigger, not forgotten trigger, right?

In this case, she started to draw, which is exactly the same action as a scry. She didn't finish drawing, she turned the action into a scry + random legal reveal.

If I had reached out to draw and in that process remembered a trigger, I'd be allowed to let it happen since I hadn't drawn yet. Yet the act of reaching towards my deck is the start of drawing. (Ask the player “why were you reaching for your deck?”)

Chris, this sounds like we're rules-lawyering FOR them to get them a trigger.
Pointing at Keranos, revealing the card, “suddenly remembering” - what about this says that they're not in the middle of resolving Keranos?

“Judge, can I mise?” should generally be answered with “No” :)

OK, thanks for your answers. Chris got the crux of the dilemna, but it seems the consensus seems to be that even though it's the same physical action as something she would have done to resolve Thassa's trigger legally, her clear intent (which she does not deny) is proof enough that she has moved past the point where the trigger can resolve.

I'm a bit surprised that some people suggested a DQ. I mean, I can see similarities to the much-discussed Jacky Lee DQ where a player misunderstood the IPG and thought she was doing something legal, but on the other hand here Alexandria she did not knowingly break a rule of the game (unlike in that case) and she did not try to hide information from Noelle, who predictably called a judge when she felt something was wrong.

Originally posted by Nathanaël François:

I'm a bit surprised that some people suggested a DQ. I mean, I can see similarities to the much-discussed Jacky Lee DQ where a player misunderstood the IPG and thought she was doing something legal, but on the other hand here Alexandria she did not knowingly break a rule of the game (unlike in that case) and she did not try to hide information from Noelle, who predictably called a judge when she felt something was wrong.

We are talking about a (possible) DQ not for Alexandria's actual game actions, but for lying to the judge. If she insists that she didn't forget the trigger and that she's scrying for Thassa, but she revealed the card, she has to have some pretty clear explanation (maybe, she has to explain this in private as it could be a complicated mind trick) why she did so. David already referred to this situation in his post. And if Alexandria had no reason to do this, but still insists that she's scrying, that means that she's clearly lying.

Also we know that she's actually trying to gain an advantage.
So to consider it Cheating, we (as per IPG) will only have to verify that she knows that lying to the judge is illegal. And I'm pretty sure that it's not a difficult thing to establish.