I was reading an article to day that truly shocked and disgusted me. The author chose to recount a game he played with a friend who ended-up missing an upkeep trigger. I felt pretty disgusted by the tone of the piece, where he even ends up sideway retroactively insulting his friend in the closing paragraphs. (And not being being honest or thourough in his review of the other side.)
Clearly, he's not aware of Wizards on-and-off relationship with missed triggers and the weird differentiation made between triggers vs game-state violations. Clearly, Wizards understands the complex alternative and tried a few over the years, each with compromises to both sides. (While the author here chooses to ignore them to take the high road.)
But, on the good side, it made me think about how to improve the game. I think the outcome of games should not rest on one player missing a trigger or not. I hope reasonable people would agree. Especially automatic triggers like the ones on upkeep. Already, Wizards tolerates one putting a dice on one's library to remind of upkeep triggers. But this does not fix other type of triggers.
So what I've come up with is the idea that Wizards should print trigger cards, just like tokens, that represent the various triggers that can happen in a given set. You'd put them around where you like to remind you: on your library, on top of the cards that triggers, etc. They be included in some packs as alternatives to tokens.
It would still not solve entirely the problem (MTGO, at least, is the complete solution), but it would help reduce the chance one forgets something and a game being decided by who is the least tired and distracted.
I learned this from a friend - put a dice on top of your library whenever you have an upkeep trigger that you need to remember. You can also use it to remember something at the end of your opponent's turn, if you're playing a draw-go kind of deck.
Then, you can bluff people by placing a dice on your deck for no reason. If you're into that kind of thing.
At the very least, Wizards should rule that drawing a card should not be an auto-skip of your upkeep triggers. Knowledge of the card rarely affect what you would do with the trigger and a judge could still judge that you will miss the trigger. Just that the default would be to not have missed the trigger. Losing to pact is just lame, and not having made a 5/5 dragon token is not far behind.
I stopped reading at "unsleeved cards". Rules only apply to sleeved cards. I know back in the day this was different, but we are not riding on dinosaurs anymore, right?
SO: no sleeve = casual game = don't be a dick about rules
sleeves = serious game = tounament rules apply
That's my uninformed opinion on the matter. I don't like reminder cards that take away real token slots in a booster.
I guess I'm on the other side of the fence about this topic.
I think there's a reason why there are different Rule Enforcement Levels (RELs) for different types of games. I agree that in a game between friends, where nothing but pride is on the line, that a missed trigger should not dictate the outcome of a game. Early on in the article the author indicates that there was a "very minimal" prize on the line. If it's largely a game between friends/classmates, I would have allowed an opponent to "rewind" the game and get their trigger.
However, even Wizards has recognized that the rules are more strictly enforced at higher-level events. So while I agree that in the article the author probably should have allowed his opponent to pay for his trigger, I disagree that Wizards should make a rule that drawing a card should not be an auto-skip of your upkeep triggers. (I do, however, think that a trigger card would be a decent idea on how to help players remember their triggers). I have no issue when a trigger dictates the outcome of a game at a higher-level event. Remembering triggers is an integral part of playing well, something that top players practice. Being tired and distracted is a part of playing in a big tournament, and I believe those that are able to maintain a high level of focus during such events deserve to be rewarded.
tldr: The idea of a trigger card is cool. The idea that Wizards should make a rule that drawing a card does not auto-skip your upkeep triggers is not cool (that's what various levels of REL are meant to address).
I think the author should have given his "friend" the game. It's casual. Winning due to a rules wrinkle is no fun.
But a rules change? No. Proper management of triggers and steps of the game is part of what separates skilled players from unskilled players, and once somebody draws their card, their upkeep should be over, whatever the consequences.
I mean, the alternative isn't healthy for the game. Knowledge of the top card of one's deck is huge, even in the slight window between upkeep and main phase. In the example in the article, it wouldn't have mattered, since the optimal play is clearly to pay the upkeep and win. But I can think of plenty of situations where it would have mattered. For example: If the defending player was at a healthy life total, then keeping the Drake around would be of only marginal value. Letting it die and then casting a bomb would be a good play. But the decision needs to be made on the upkeep; knowing you were going to topdeck a rare that wins the game, or topdeck the land to cast your bomb, influences that decision. Relaxing the rules of upkeep triggers allows for cheating, and evaluating the difference between an absentminded premature draw and a calculated reach for extra information would be a nightmare.
Mistakes are part of the game, and it isn't WotC's responsibility to hold our hand and minimize them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
Or people could simply do what I do every game: declare absolutely everything and pass priority vocally.
Untap
Upkeep
Draw
Main 1: I play <land>
Declare Attackers
Attacking with
No in betweens
Declare Blockers
Pass Priority
Damage
Main 2: I cast XYZ
End Step
It's not that hard, makes the game very clear and helps remind you if you need to do something during a step. This also allows both parties to play at a steady pace and very clearly play cards when needed without too much needing to rewind.
However, time and time again people skip several steps and ask to rewind. Missing the upkeep by immediately drawing without untapping. Draw and immediately turn creatures sideways without allowing the opponent to do something about it. Throw a 1 drop before playing a fetch land and actually fetching. All pet-peeves...
My beef with the "it's part of the game" philosophy is that it is entirely arbitrary.
On one end of the arbitrariness spectrum, life totals are also "part of the game" and yet, they are both player's responsibility. Similarly, you don't get to not untap your stuff if you draw a card before untapping.
On the other end of the spectrum, the game rule could very well say that if you miss a trigger, any trigger, you lose the game. Of that if you draw before untapping ,you don't get to untap.
Do you think the game would be a better show of skill if you auto-loss for a missed trigger or didn't untap? Why don't plead for these kind of things? Because they're "not part of the game". That they're not, is arbitrary.
The point is, what you are required to upheld, what you are allowed to let go if your opponent forgets, and what result in a game loss is entirely arbitrary. Saying that it's a skill does not change the fact that the difference is arbitrary. I'd also say that putting a dice on your library is not a skill. Please, don't feel smug for so little.
And do note, because I fully expected your kind of replies, that I said the *default* should be that the trigger should not be skipped. A judge should still be called. If the information gained is relevant, then the judge would still be allowed to have you miss the trigger. But for a lot, I'd say most, trigger, the current situation makes little sense. Which card would you need to draw, exactly, to make you prefer to immediately lose the game in the pact case?!?
Edit: also, I've just realized that the new reminder cards could have text on them that outlined the consequence of forgetting the trigger: if the responsibility is for both players, if you should call a judge or if the missed trigger is missed. Like this, Wizards could state their stance on a per-trigger basis, based on the nature and consequence of the trigger.
My beef with the "it's part of the game" philosophy is that it is entirely arbitrary.
On one end of the arbitrariness spectrum, life totals are also "part of the game" and yet, they are both player's responsibility. Similarly, you don't get to not untap your stuff if you draw a card before untapping.
On the other end of the spectrum, the game rule could very well say that if you miss a trigger, any trigger, you lose the game. Of that if you draw before untapping ,you don't get to untap.
Do you think the game would be a better show of skill if you auto-loss for a missed trigger or didn't untap? Why don't plead for these kind of things? Because they're "not part of the game". That they're not, is arbitrary.
The point is, what you are required to upheld, what you are allowed to let go if your opponent forgets, and what result in a game loss is entirely arbitrary. Saying that it's a skill does not change the fact that the difference is arbitrary. I'd also say that putting a dice on your library is not a skill. Please, don't feel smug for so little.
And do note, because I fully expected your kind of replies, that I said the *default* should be that the trigger should not be skipped. A judge should still be called. If the information gained is relevant, then the judge would still be allowed to have you miss the trigger. But for a lot, I'd say most, trigger, the current situation makes little sense. Which card would you need to draw, exactly, to make you prefer to immediately lose the game in the pact case?!?
Edit: also, I've just realized that the new reminder cards could have text on them that outlined the consequence of forgetting the trigger: if the responsibility is for both players, if you should call a judge or if the missed trigger is missed. Like this, Wizards could state their stance on a per-trigger basis, based on the nature and consequence of the trigger.
I'm not sure to whom this snarky reply is being made, but since I disagree with your position and I'm one of the people who do not have a big issue with missed triggers, I'll bite.
Of course all these rules are arbitrary, but are you arguing that the player who is able to keep track of his/her triggers should be held to the same "everyone gets a participation trophy" standard as the lackadaisical player who forgets his/her triggers? As long as everyone is held to the same standard, I do not see the problem here.
Since you want to change the rules to allow for a judge making the determination of whether the information gained from drawing before your trigger is "relevant", does it matter what the trigger is? Obviously forgetting the trigger on a Pact of Negation is much more black/white "determine the game" type of situation than say, someone forgetting a Phyrexian Arena trigger. If it matters what type of trigger is, where would you draw the line?
Of course, this all overlooks the fact that you completely ignored the built-in safety net of regular versus competitive REL. Wizards, although not perfect, have recognized that the rules should be more relaxed in a setting where the stakes are not great and so encourages a more friendly, socially-oriented atmosphere. The "GOTCHA, YOU MISSED A TRIGGER" mentality (that I'm completely fine with) is reserved for higher-level tournaments, which in my reply to you I indicated I believe is fair.
I'm not sure how trigger token cards are any better than the actual card already sitting there. If I'm likely to ignore the Echo trigger on my creature, I'm probably just as likely to ignore the Echo trigger on my trigger token. The card with the trigger is already there to remind me, does having a second card somehow help me more? I don't see it. For most triggers like that, putting a die on top of your library should be sufficient.
Also, the writer of that article was in the wrong. In a "very casual" game with a "very minimal prize", he should have allowed his opponent to pay the Echo cost.
My beef with the "it's part of the game" philosophy is that it is entirely arbitrary.
They're as arbitrary as the written rules of the game.
On one end of the arbitrariness spectrum, life totals are also "part of the game" and yet, they are both player's responsibility.
For a good reason. If I "forget" to take damage from my fetches and shocks it's a lot easier to win a game.
Similarly, you don't get to not untap your stuff if you draw a card before untapping.
Because there's a difference in the rules between mandatory actions and optional ones. Most triggers are not "must".
On the other end of the spectrum, the game rule could very well say that if you miss a trigger, any trigger, you lose the game. Of that if you draw before untapping ,you don't get to untap.
Yes, it could. It doesn't though.
Do you think the game would be a better show of skill if you auto-loss for a missed trigger or didn't untap? Why don't plead for these kind of things? Because they're "not part of the game". That they're not, is arbitrary.
Because the rules don't say that. I think it would be a different show of skill - similar to the format some Judges play where that's essentially the case (if you miss a trigger you lose).
The rules aren't arbitrary. They're defined.
The point is, what you are required to upheld, what you are allowed to let go if your opponent forgets, and what result in a game loss is entirely arbitrary. Saying that it's a skill does not change the fact that the difference is arbitrary. I'd also say that putting a dice on your library is not a skill. Please, don't feel smug for so little.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It's not arbitrary. There's a reason things have the consequences they do - and it's not "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." (the definition of arbitrary)
And do note, because I fully expected your kind of replies, that I said the *default* should be that the trigger should not be skipped. A judge should still be called. If the information gained is relevant, then the judge would still be allowed to have you miss the trigger. But for a lot, I'd say most, trigger, the current situation makes little sense. Which card would you need to draw, exactly, to make you prefer to immediately lose the game in the pact case?!?
If the default is to not skip the trigger, why should I ever care about my triggers? And why are you calling a judge for every missed trigger?
And while most triggers might not lose/win the game right now, they do things to get you to that state. It's the reason they exist.
Edit: also, I've just realized that the new reminder cards could have text on them that outlined the consequence of forgetting the trigger: if the responsibility is for both players, if you should call a judge or if the missed trigger is missed. Like this, Wizards could state their stance on a per-trigger basis, based on the nature and consequence of the trigger.
This information already exists - you could make the cards for yourself if you want. It wouldn't be that hard.
Wow! Have you followed a thin little bits the history of how missed triggers are handled at the competitive level? The rules have changed over time. At one point, both players were responsible for them. Nowaday, triggers that benefits you are no longer your opponents responsibility. If the rules changed over time, if Wizards tweaks them, it clearly shows that the current state is arbitrary. If you had not tried to be dismissive, you'd have read the second definition of arbitrary: having only relative application or relevance; not absolute. Or: not laid down by statute; within the court's discretion. The current trigger rules are pretty much at Wizards discretion.
Most of you reply seems based on you choosing to ignore the concept of illustrating something by taking extreme values. (Me saying "On one end of the arbitrariness spectrum" was a big clue.)
The reason the default should not be to automatically miss them is that Magic should not be a game revolving around not missing unsubstantiated events. The whole reason triggers are forgotten is that they have almost no physical presence. By giving them forms, it makes them easier to remember. I'm of the opinion that if you had dedicated cards and a dedicated zone for them (and the ability to put them on your library) it would lead to fewer errors.
And yes, I can make the cards, just like anyone *could* make their own token but don't. And Wizards provides token. I also think that self-made reminder cards would not be accepted in tournament play.
Remembering triggers isn't part of the game. It's something that everyone knows and everyone forgets from time to time.
The rules for GP and PT are ok. You shouldn't forget triggers at that level of participation and it's ok to lose a game from a missed trigger.
Anything less than that is just jerkish to do.
Also the chess analogy fails miserably. The only time where moves aren't taken back is in a professional setting at a tournament. If you torment your friends with rule lawyering you don't deserve those friends. It feels just like cheating.
Why would you cheat in a game with your friends for fun?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to DNC at Heroes of the plane studios for this awesome sig and SGT_Chubbz for the awesome avy. Check out the Shop Thread
Wow! Have you followed a thin little bits the history of how missed triggers are handled at the competitive level? The rules have changed over time. At one point, both players were responsible for them. Nowaday, triggers that benefits you are no longer your opponents responsibility. If the rules changed over time, if Wizards tweaks them, it clearly shows that the current state is arbitrary. If you had not tried to be dismissive, you'd have read the second definition of arbitrary: having only relative application or relevance; not absolute. Or: not laid down by statute; within the court's discretion. The current trigger rules are pretty much at Wizards discretion.
Then literally everything in Magic is arbitrary, using that definition. Being able to untap, ever, is an arbitrary rule.
Saying it's arbitrary is not the same thing as saying it's bad, again using that definition.
Most of you reply seems based on you choosing to ignore the concept of illustrating something by taking extreme values. (Me saying "On one end of the arbitrariness spectrum" was a big clue.)
You brought up the extreme. I replied to what you brought up. Most of my comments hold to any part of the spectrum.
The reason the default should not be to automatically miss them is that Magic should not be a game revolving around not missing unsubstantiated events. The whole reason triggers are forgotten is that they have almost no physical presence. By giving them forms, it makes them easier to remember. I'm of the opinion that if you had dedicated cards and a dedicated zone for them (and the ability to put them on your library) it would lead to fewer errors.
You can already put dice on your library. There's literally nothing stopping you from writing "1 = Echo trigger" on your notepad and putting a die with a 1 on your library. And then "2 = Pact trigger" and putting a 2 on a die on top of your library.
Taking the time to make tokens serves little benefit for a lot of work. And you're still saying that a judge should be called for every missed upkeep trigger. Which is simply insane.
And yes, I can make the cards, just like anyone *could* make their own token but don't. And Wizards provides token. I also think that self-made reminder cards would not be accepted in tournament play.
Why? Self made tokens are already acceptable, just not on camera. Perhaps you should review the tournament rules before determining what "would not be accepted in tournament play"?
Then literally everything in Magic is arbitrary, using that definition. Being able to untap, ever, is an arbitrary rule.
You know that choosing to constantly interpret what others say in the most debilitating ways is and always has been really poor style? Bordering on trolling? You ignore the whole paragraph. You're conflating Wizards wavering stance on missed triggers with actual core mechanics of the game. How do you justify that in any other way than being of bad faith?
And you're still saying that a judge should be called for every missed upkeep trigger. Which is simply insane.
Only because you're ignoring that I said that the trigger reminder cards would allow Wizards to preemptively specify the results for most triggers which actually are not impacted by, in the case of upkeeps, card drawing. Most common ones are like that: making a token, losing the game. When you address each part separately, unsurprisingly, the results are weaker than the whole. Future triggers can be designed with that in minds.
There have been historical ones that are unfortunate in the way they interact with card drawing, like echo, but I think that it would be easy to design future ones to avoid that. It's double unfortunate because the actual cases where the card drawn actually push one to not pay an echo that would have been paid are only a small subset of cases. It's also too bad that the early game design chose to make most start-of-turn triggers happen before the card drawing, which is what led to the whole mess in the first place.
Then literally everything in Magic is arbitrary, using that definition. Being able to untap, ever, is an arbitrary rule.
You know that choosing to constantly interpret what others say in the most debilitating ways is and always has been really poor style? Bordering on trolling? You ignore the whole paragraph. You're conflating Wizards wavering stance on missed triggers with actual core mechanics of the game. How do you justify that in any other way than being of bad faith?
Use different words then. You made a statement. You then said I used the wrong definition of the word (the far less commonly used definition, by the way) to interpret your statement.
I used the one you pointed out. Now I'm trolling?
I didn't ignore the whole paragraph.
Yes, the rules have changed over time. I'm not sure how that's at all relevant to your argument. And I haven't conflated anything - you called the rules arbitrary.
My beef with the "it's part of the game" philosophy is that it is entirely arbitrary.
On one end of the arbitrariness spectrum, life totals are also "part of the game" and yet, they are both player's responsibility. Similarly, you don't get to not untap your stuff if you draw a card before untapping.
Look - actual game rules that you're calling arbitrary. So literally exactly like what I said.
And you're still saying that a judge should be called for every missed upkeep trigger. Which is simply insane.
Only because you're ignoring that I said that the trigger reminder cards would allow Wizards to preemptively specify the results for most triggers which actually are not impacted by, in the case of upkeeps, card drawing.
You say that most triggers aren't impacted by drawing a card. I disagree with that assertion - I'd say the information gained by drawing a card impacts decisions that need to be made for triggers.
Most common ones are like that: making a token, losing the game. When you address each part separately, unsurprisingly, the results are weaker than the whole. Future triggers can be designed with that in minds.
Sure, rules can be changed in an arbitrary fashion. There isn't a reason to do so, however.
There have been historical ones that are unfortunate in the way they interact with card drawing, like echo, but I think that it would be easy to design future ones to avoid that. It's double unfortunate because the actual cases where the card drawn actually push one to not pay an echo that would have been paid are only a small subset of cases. It's also too bad that the early game design chose to make most start-of-turn triggers happen before the card drawing, which is what led to the whole mess in the first place.
Question for you.
If we change every upkeep trigger to be a Main Phase 1 trigger and someone draws a card and then casts a spell, would you then argue that they should be able to back up and resolve the trigger?
Where's the cutoff?
As it stands, there's a very definite and obvious demarcation of "You missed that trigger." ("You drew a card.") Shifting that obvious demarcation ("You cast a spell." "You attacked." "You passed the turn.") doesn't do anything but kick the can down the road.
Would the story change at all if Echo had to be paid during MP1 and the person drew a card and immediately declared attackers?
If someone says something and uses a word and there is a sense of word that doesn't fit what he says and one that does, then yeah, using the wrong one is borderline trolling. And yes, saying that the trigger rules is on the same level as untapping is dubious at best.
You also just keep talking about what was *merely* an illustration. It's as if you were arguing about the specifics of a metaphor instead of the point the metaphor illustrates. It was an hypothetical to express more vividly that the current trigger rules could be and have been different.
As for the question, there are four different things:
1. It doesn't affect the usefulness of having new free cards to embody triggers.
2. It doesn't affect that Wizards could have different rules for different triggers, supported by those cards.
3. I *do* think that MP1 trigger would be less likely to be skipped over than upkeep because a lot of times, the upkeep trigger are not really forgotten: it's merely that the player mechanically picks up his card for the turn. Casting a spell or attacking requires active thinking, unlike drawing a card.
4. Given the first three points, and thus that most triggers would already be ruled as not forgotten (the big-impact ones that no player would ever willfully be happy to forget, like making a token or losing the game) or auto-skipped for more minor ones (I'd put things like scry, for example, which do influence the game, no mistake there, but are not as immediately punishing and unforgiving). So we're left with the hard ones. Given that they would be less numerous, a be made of those not as punishing, and that the trigger cards would help, I would not mind them being skipped.
the upkeep trigger are not really forgotten: it's merely that the player mechanically picks up his card for the turn. Casting a spell or attacking requires active thinking, unlike drawing a card.
Drawing a card should require thinking. Knowing that you have the potential for upkeep triggers means you should have to think about things.
Automatically doing anything is simply a bad argument.
"I automatically attacked into that Goyf with my Goblin Guide. Can I take it back?"
"I automatically tried to Mana Leak that Loxodon Smiter. Oops. Can we just say I didn't?"
You're asserting that remembering triggers isn't a skill and yet saying that the reason they're forgotten is because people do things on auto-pilot... which shows a lack of skill.
You didn't answer my question, despite your four different things. (Or, if you attempted to, you talked past anything that I'd consider an answer)
If we change every upkeep trigger to be a Main Phase 1 trigger and someone draws a card and then casts a spell, would you then argue that they should be able to back up and resolve the trigger?
Your entire line of argument is based on ignoring or dismissing that there is a fundamental difference between a passive action (missing a trigger) and an active action (casting a spell, attacking into a larger creature). I've repeated it multiple times now, and you've dismissed it multiples times.
If my point #4, which is where the previous leads, doesn't answer your question, then I don't know what will. I mean I wrote explicitly, the last freaking sentence of my whole answer: "Given that they would be less numerous, a be made of those not as punishing, and that the trigger cards would help, I would not mind them being skipped."
At this point, just forget it. Your bad faith is staggering. Whatever I say you pretend to not get it or, to quote you, "not consider it an answer." Well just farewell then, I don't see the point of replying to you anymore.
I just don't consider that a game of Magic should be about missed triggers. I do think they essentially different from the active portion of a game. I think they're a necessary evil and a nuisance.
My point, fundamentally, has nothing to do with skill. In the end, it does not matter if someone forgets a trigger half the times or once every thousand. The goal is to minimize missed triggers and to remove the idiotic consequence some of them have. Just like watching a train wreck of a match where someone mulligan into oblivion, its detrimental to the game.
You can choose to ignore it, to promote it as game-skill. Obviously, in this thread and elsewhere, reasonable people disagree.
Your entire line of argument is based on ignoring or dismissing that there is a fundamental difference between a passive action (missing a trigger) and an active action (casting a spell, attacking into a larger creature). I've repeated it multiple times now, and you've dismissed it multiples times.
Is drawing a card an active action?
If my point #4, which is where the previous leads, doesn't answer your question, then I don't know what will. I mean I wrote explicitly, the last freaking sentence of my whole answer: "Given that they would be less numerous, a be made of those not as punishing, and that the trigger cards would help, I would not mind them being skipped."
I was assuming that's what you meant, but it's rude to assume so I wanted to clarify.
I just don't consider that a game of Magic should be about missed triggers. I do think they essentially different from the active portion of a game. I think they're a necessary evil and a nuisance.
My point, fundamentally, has nothing to do with skill. In the end, it does not matter if someone forgets a trigger half the times or once every thousand. The goal is to minimize missed triggers and to remove the idiotic consequence some of them have. Just like watching a train wreck of a match where someone mulligan into oblivion, its detrimental to the game.
They're not even remotely the same.
You build your deck. You're aware of what the cards in your deck do. Do you agree?
If you're missing triggers it's the same as not casting that counterspell you put in the deck - you put a card there for a reason, and now you're missing the reason you put it there.
You can choose to ignore it, to promote it as game-skill. Obviously, in this thread and elsewhere, reasonable people disagree.
Well, so far in this thread, it looks like everyone else in this thread is fine with the status-quo. Some people think that the person in the original article should've not enforced the rule in such a casual game, but that's not your point.
Thanks for calling me unreasonable, however. It really serves to drive your point home that you're right and I'm wrong. Well played.
I described drawing as mechanical earlier. It's not passive like a trigger, but it's not as cognitive as playing a spell or choosing how to attack.
They key point, anyway, is not in which action signal that a trigger has been missed, but the missing itself. The fact that card drawing is a repeat action, turn after turn, just makes it more likely to miss triggers.
"Reasonable people disagree" is a very normal turn of phrase meaning that it's a point of view that is not unusual. That you chose to take it as an insult is pretty typical of your attitude in this thread.
Personally I'm done. This discussion is disagreeable at every turn.
I described drawing as mechanical earlier. It's not passive like a trigger, but it's not as cognitive as playing a spell or choosing how to attack.
So your statement that I've dismissed you "pointing out" that missing a trigger is passive while casting/attacking is active isn't relevant then, because you agree that there's an active action required to miss a trigger.
They key point, anyway, is not in which action signal that a trigger has been missed, but the missing itself. The fact that card drawing is a repeat action, turn after turn, just makes it more likely to miss triggers.
So triggers should be unable to be missed, ever? I completely disagree.
"Reasonable people disagree" is a very normal turn of phrase meaning that it's a point of view that is not unusual. That you chose to take it as an insult is pretty typical of your attitude in this thread.
Forgive me for reading hostility into your post, since it's been there from your first reply.
Please, don't feel smug for so little.
It's not a little thing to know your deck. If you know your deck, you don't miss triggers that you include in your deck.
Personally I'm done. This discussion is disagreeable at every turn.
I thought you said disagreement was okay?
In any event, as I said before, there's no need for new tokens because it's trivial to keep track as it is - even at higher RELs.
You shouldn't be changing the rules to encourage sloppy play.
For a moment there, I thought disagreeable was a false friend, and really was related to disagreement. Then I searched the English definition online. I t confirmed that you just like to troll. You've been using every passive-aggressive attitude in the book. Re-read yourself: misreading, misinterpreting, being voluntarily obtuse. So, nope, I have nothing to add on the subject.
Clearly, he's not aware of Wizards on-and-off relationship with missed triggers and the weird differentiation made between triggers vs game-state violations. Clearly, Wizards understands the complex alternative and tried a few over the years, each with compromises to both sides. (While the author here chooses to ignore them to take the high road.)
But, on the good side, it made me think about how to improve the game. I think the outcome of games should not rest on one player missing a trigger or not. I hope reasonable people would agree. Especially automatic triggers like the ones on upkeep. Already, Wizards tolerates one putting a dice on one's library to remind of upkeep triggers. But this does not fix other type of triggers.
So what I've come up with is the idea that Wizards should print trigger cards, just like tokens, that represent the various triggers that can happen in a given set. You'd put them around where you like to remind you: on your library, on top of the cards that triggers, etc. They be included in some packs as alternatives to tokens.
It would still not solve entirely the problem (MTGO, at least, is the complete solution), but it would help reduce the chance one forgets something and a game being decided by who is the least tired and distracted.
I do like the trigger card idea. But I am not sure what else you could use them for besides upkeep triggers without cluttering up the board.
Then, you can bluff people by placing a dice on your deck for no reason. If you're into that kind of thing.
SO: no sleeve = casual game = don't be a dick about rules
sleeves = serious game = tounament rules apply
That's my uninformed opinion on the matter. I don't like reminder cards that take away real token slots in a booster.
I think there's a reason why there are different Rule Enforcement Levels (RELs) for different types of games. I agree that in a game between friends, where nothing but pride is on the line, that a missed trigger should not dictate the outcome of a game. Early on in the article the author indicates that there was a "very minimal" prize on the line. If it's largely a game between friends/classmates, I would have allowed an opponent to "rewind" the game and get their trigger.
However, even Wizards has recognized that the rules are more strictly enforced at higher-level events. So while I agree that in the article the author probably should have allowed his opponent to pay for his trigger, I disagree that Wizards should make a rule that drawing a card should not be an auto-skip of your upkeep triggers. (I do, however, think that a trigger card would be a decent idea on how to help players remember their triggers). I have no issue when a trigger dictates the outcome of a game at a higher-level event. Remembering triggers is an integral part of playing well, something that top players practice. Being tired and distracted is a part of playing in a big tournament, and I believe those that are able to maintain a high level of focus during such events deserve to be rewarded.
tldr: The idea of a trigger card is cool. The idea that Wizards should make a rule that drawing a card does not auto-skip your upkeep triggers is not cool (that's what various levels of REL are meant to address).
Currently Playing:
Multiplayer EDH Lists (click italics for a link to the thread!)
[Primer] Lord of Tresserhorn - Don't Tell Me What I Can't Do[Primer] Roon of the Hidden Realm - Rhino Blink
5 Color Tribal Guide (Slivers, Atogs, Allies, Spirits)
Also Playing (most decklists can be found on my profile)
MarathGeistKamahlGrenzoBolasThassaGitrog
PiratesZurVial Smasher&ThrasiosYennettJhoira(cEDH)Strix(Pauper)
Legacy: Maverick
Modern:
Melira PodRIP 1/19/15GWHatebearsBut a rules change? No. Proper management of triggers and steps of the game is part of what separates skilled players from unskilled players, and once somebody draws their card, their upkeep should be over, whatever the consequences.
I mean, the alternative isn't healthy for the game. Knowledge of the top card of one's deck is huge, even in the slight window between upkeep and main phase. In the example in the article, it wouldn't have mattered, since the optimal play is clearly to pay the upkeep and win. But I can think of plenty of situations where it would have mattered. For example: If the defending player was at a healthy life total, then keeping the Drake around would be of only marginal value. Letting it die and then casting a bomb would be a good play. But the decision needs to be made on the upkeep; knowing you were going to topdeck a rare that wins the game, or topdeck the land to cast your bomb, influences that decision. Relaxing the rules of upkeep triggers allows for cheating, and evaluating the difference between an absentminded premature draw and a calculated reach for extra information would be a nightmare.
Mistakes are part of the game, and it isn't WotC's responsibility to hold our hand and minimize them.
Untap
Upkeep
Draw
Main 1: I play <land>
Declare Attackers
Attacking with
No in betweens
Declare Blockers
Pass Priority
Damage
Main 2: I cast XYZ
End Step
It's not that hard, makes the game very clear and helps remind you if you need to do something during a step. This also allows both parties to play at a steady pace and very clearly play cards when needed without too much needing to rewind.
However, time and time again people skip several steps and ask to rewind. Missing the upkeep by immediately drawing without untapping. Draw and immediately turn creatures sideways without allowing the opponent to do something about it. Throw a 1 drop before playing a fetch land and actually fetching. All pet-peeves...
My opinion anyways...
RETIRED - GAME SUCKS
Modern:
UUUMerfolksUUU
RGoblinsR
Ad Nauseam
BR 8 Racks RB
WUB Mill BUW
Legacy:
XOps! All splels! X
What I think of MaRo
On one end of the arbitrariness spectrum, life totals are also "part of the game" and yet, they are both player's responsibility. Similarly, you don't get to not untap your stuff if you draw a card before untapping.
On the other end of the spectrum, the game rule could very well say that if you miss a trigger, any trigger, you lose the game. Of that if you draw before untapping ,you don't get to untap.
Do you think the game would be a better show of skill if you auto-loss for a missed trigger or didn't untap? Why don't plead for these kind of things? Because they're "not part of the game". That they're not, is arbitrary.
The point is, what you are required to upheld, what you are allowed to let go if your opponent forgets, and what result in a game loss is entirely arbitrary. Saying that it's a skill does not change the fact that the difference is arbitrary. I'd also say that putting a dice on your library is not a skill. Please, don't feel smug for so little.
And do note, because I fully expected your kind of replies, that I said the *default* should be that the trigger should not be skipped. A judge should still be called. If the information gained is relevant, then the judge would still be allowed to have you miss the trigger. But for a lot, I'd say most, trigger, the current situation makes little sense. Which card would you need to draw, exactly, to make you prefer to immediately lose the game in the pact case?!?
Edit: also, I've just realized that the new reminder cards could have text on them that outlined the consequence of forgetting the trigger: if the responsibility is for both players, if you should call a judge or if the missed trigger is missed. Like this, Wizards could state their stance on a per-trigger basis, based on the nature and consequence of the trigger.
I'm not sure to whom this snarky reply is being made, but since I disagree with your position and I'm one of the people who do not have a big issue with missed triggers, I'll bite.
Of course all these rules are arbitrary, but are you arguing that the player who is able to keep track of his/her triggers should be held to the same "everyone gets a participation trophy" standard as the lackadaisical player who forgets his/her triggers? As long as everyone is held to the same standard, I do not see the problem here.
Since you want to change the rules to allow for a judge making the determination of whether the information gained from drawing before your trigger is "relevant", does it matter what the trigger is? Obviously forgetting the trigger on a Pact of Negation is much more black/white "determine the game" type of situation than say, someone forgetting a Phyrexian Arena trigger. If it matters what type of trigger is, where would you draw the line?
Of course, this all overlooks the fact that you completely ignored the built-in safety net of regular versus competitive REL. Wizards, although not perfect, have recognized that the rules should be more relaxed in a setting where the stakes are not great and so encourages a more friendly, socially-oriented atmosphere. The "GOTCHA, YOU MISSED A TRIGGER" mentality (that I'm completely fine with) is reserved for higher-level tournaments, which in my reply to you I indicated I believe is fair.
Currently Playing:
Multiplayer EDH Lists (click italics for a link to the thread!)
[Primer] Lord of Tresserhorn - Don't Tell Me What I Can't Do[Primer] Roon of the Hidden Realm - Rhino Blink
5 Color Tribal Guide (Slivers, Atogs, Allies, Spirits)
Also Playing (most decklists can be found on my profile)
MarathGeistKamahlGrenzoBolasThassaGitrog
PiratesZurVial Smasher&ThrasiosYennettJhoira(cEDH)Strix(Pauper)
Legacy: Maverick
Modern:
Melira PodRIP 1/19/15GWHatebearsAlso, the writer of that article was in the wrong. In a "very casual" game with a "very minimal prize", he should have allowed his opponent to pay the Echo cost.
They're as arbitrary as the written rules of the game.
For a good reason. If I "forget" to take damage from my fetches and shocks it's a lot easier to win a game.
Because there's a difference in the rules between mandatory actions and optional ones. Most triggers are not "must".
Yes, it could. It doesn't though.
Because the rules don't say that. I think it would be a different show of skill - similar to the format some Judges play where that's essentially the case (if you miss a trigger you lose).
The rules aren't arbitrary. They're defined.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It's not arbitrary. There's a reason things have the consequences they do - and it's not "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." (the definition of arbitrary)
If the default is to not skip the trigger, why should I ever care about my triggers? And why are you calling a judge for every missed trigger?
And while most triggers might not lose/win the game right now, they do things to get you to that state. It's the reason they exist.
This information already exists - you could make the cards for yourself if you want. It wouldn't be that hard.
Most of you reply seems based on you choosing to ignore the concept of illustrating something by taking extreme values. (Me saying "On one end of the arbitrariness spectrum" was a big clue.)
The reason the default should not be to automatically miss them is that Magic should not be a game revolving around not missing unsubstantiated events. The whole reason triggers are forgotten is that they have almost no physical presence. By giving them forms, it makes them easier to remember. I'm of the opinion that if you had dedicated cards and a dedicated zone for them (and the ability to put them on your library) it would lead to fewer errors.
And yes, I can make the cards, just like anyone *could* make their own token but don't. And Wizards provides token. I also think that self-made reminder cards would not be accepted in tournament play.
Remembering triggers isn't part of the game. It's something that everyone knows and everyone forgets from time to time.
The rules for GP and PT are ok. You shouldn't forget triggers at that level of participation and it's ok to lose a game from a missed trigger.
Anything less than that is just jerkish to do.
Also the chess analogy fails miserably. The only time where moves aren't taken back is in a professional setting at a tournament. If you torment your friends with rule lawyering you don't deserve those friends. It feels just like cheating.
Why would you cheat in a game with your friends for fun?
Thanks to DNC at Heroes of the plane studios for this awesome sig and SGT_Chubbz for the awesome avy.
Check out the Shop Thread
Then literally everything in Magic is arbitrary, using that definition. Being able to untap, ever, is an arbitrary rule.
Saying it's arbitrary is not the same thing as saying it's bad, again using that definition.
You brought up the extreme. I replied to what you brought up. Most of my comments hold to any part of the spectrum.
You can already put dice on your library. There's literally nothing stopping you from writing "1 = Echo trigger" on your notepad and putting a die with a 1 on your library. And then "2 = Pact trigger" and putting a 2 on a die on top of your library.
Taking the time to make tokens serves little benefit for a lot of work. And you're still saying that a judge should be called for every missed upkeep trigger. Which is simply insane.
Why? Self made tokens are already acceptable, just not on camera. Perhaps you should review the tournament rules before determining what "would not be accepted in tournament play"?
You know that choosing to constantly interpret what others say in the most debilitating ways is and always has been really poor style? Bordering on trolling? You ignore the whole paragraph. You're conflating Wizards wavering stance on missed triggers with actual core mechanics of the game. How do you justify that in any other way than being of bad faith?
Only because you're ignoring that I said that the trigger reminder cards would allow Wizards to preemptively specify the results for most triggers which actually are not impacted by, in the case of upkeeps, card drawing. Most common ones are like that: making a token, losing the game. When you address each part separately, unsurprisingly, the results are weaker than the whole. Future triggers can be designed with that in minds.
There have been historical ones that are unfortunate in the way they interact with card drawing, like echo, but I think that it would be easy to design future ones to avoid that. It's double unfortunate because the actual cases where the card drawn actually push one to not pay an echo that would have been paid are only a small subset of cases. It's also too bad that the early game design chose to make most start-of-turn triggers happen before the card drawing, which is what led to the whole mess in the first place.
Use different words then. You made a statement. You then said I used the wrong definition of the word (the far less commonly used definition, by the way) to interpret your statement.
I used the one you pointed out. Now I'm trolling?
I didn't ignore the whole paragraph.
Yes, the rules have changed over time. I'm not sure how that's at all relevant to your argument. And I haven't conflated anything - you called the rules arbitrary.
Look - actual game rules that you're calling arbitrary. So literally exactly like what I said.
You say that most triggers aren't impacted by drawing a card. I disagree with that assertion - I'd say the information gained by drawing a card impacts decisions that need to be made for triggers.
Sure, rules can be changed in an arbitrary fashion. There isn't a reason to do so, however.
Question for you.
If we change every upkeep trigger to be a Main Phase 1 trigger and someone draws a card and then casts a spell, would you then argue that they should be able to back up and resolve the trigger?
Where's the cutoff?
As it stands, there's a very definite and obvious demarcation of "You missed that trigger." ("You drew a card.") Shifting that obvious demarcation ("You cast a spell." "You attacked." "You passed the turn.") doesn't do anything but kick the can down the road.
Would the story change at all if Echo had to be paid during MP1 and the person drew a card and immediately declared attackers?
If someone says something and uses a word and there is a sense of word that doesn't fit what he says and one that does, then yeah, using the wrong one is borderline trolling. And yes, saying that the trigger rules is on the same level as untapping is dubious at best.
You also just keep talking about what was *merely* an illustration. It's as if you were arguing about the specifics of a metaphor instead of the point the metaphor illustrates. It was an hypothetical to express more vividly that the current trigger rules could be and have been different.
As for the question, there are four different things:
1. It doesn't affect the usefulness of having new free cards to embody triggers.
2. It doesn't affect that Wizards could have different rules for different triggers, supported by those cards.
3. I *do* think that MP1 trigger would be less likely to be skipped over than upkeep because a lot of times, the upkeep trigger are not really forgotten: it's merely that the player mechanically picks up his card for the turn. Casting a spell or attacking requires active thinking, unlike drawing a card.
4. Given the first three points, and thus that most triggers would already be ruled as not forgotten (the big-impact ones that no player would ever willfully be happy to forget, like making a token or losing the game) or auto-skipped for more minor ones (I'd put things like scry, for example, which do influence the game, no mistake there, but are not as immediately punishing and unforgiving). So we're left with the hard ones. Given that they would be less numerous, a be made of those not as punishing, and that the trigger cards would help, I would not mind them being skipped.
Drawing a card should require thinking. Knowing that you have the potential for upkeep triggers means you should have to think about things.
Automatically doing anything is simply a bad argument.
"I automatically attacked into that Goyf with my Goblin Guide. Can I take it back?"
"I automatically tried to Mana Leak that Loxodon Smiter. Oops. Can we just say I didn't?"
You're asserting that remembering triggers isn't a skill and yet saying that the reason they're forgotten is because people do things on auto-pilot... which shows a lack of skill.
You didn't answer my question, despite your four different things. (Or, if you attempted to, you talked past anything that I'd consider an answer)
If we change every upkeep trigger to be a Main Phase 1 trigger and someone draws a card and then casts a spell, would you then argue that they should be able to back up and resolve the trigger?
If my point #4, which is where the previous leads, doesn't answer your question, then I don't know what will. I mean I wrote explicitly, the last freaking sentence of my whole answer: "Given that they would be less numerous, a be made of those not as punishing, and that the trigger cards would help, I would not mind them being skipped."
At this point, just forget it. Your bad faith is staggering. Whatever I say you pretend to not get it or, to quote you, "not consider it an answer." Well just farewell then, I don't see the point of replying to you anymore.
I just don't consider that a game of Magic should be about missed triggers. I do think they essentially different from the active portion of a game. I think they're a necessary evil and a nuisance.
My point, fundamentally, has nothing to do with skill. In the end, it does not matter if someone forgets a trigger half the times or once every thousand. The goal is to minimize missed triggers and to remove the idiotic consequence some of them have. Just like watching a train wreck of a match where someone mulligan into oblivion, its detrimental to the game.
You can choose to ignore it, to promote it as game-skill. Obviously, in this thread and elsewhere, reasonable people disagree.
Is drawing a card an active action?
I was assuming that's what you meant, but it's rude to assume so I wanted to clarify.
They're not even remotely the same.
You build your deck. You're aware of what the cards in your deck do. Do you agree?
If you're missing triggers it's the same as not casting that counterspell you put in the deck - you put a card there for a reason, and now you're missing the reason you put it there.
Well, so far in this thread, it looks like everyone else in this thread is fine with the status-quo. Some people think that the person in the original article should've not enforced the rule in such a casual game, but that's not your point.
Thanks for calling me unreasonable, however. It really serves to drive your point home that you're right and I'm wrong. Well played.
They key point, anyway, is not in which action signal that a trigger has been missed, but the missing itself. The fact that card drawing is a repeat action, turn after turn, just makes it more likely to miss triggers.
"Reasonable people disagree" is a very normal turn of phrase meaning that it's a point of view that is not unusual. That you chose to take it as an insult is pretty typical of your attitude in this thread.
Personally I'm done. This discussion is disagreeable at every turn.
So your statement that I've dismissed you "pointing out" that missing a trigger is passive while casting/attacking is active isn't relevant then, because you agree that there's an active action required to miss a trigger.
So triggers should be unable to be missed, ever? I completely disagree.
Forgive me for reading hostility into your post, since it's been there from your first reply.
It's not a little thing to know your deck. If you know your deck, you don't miss triggers that you include in your deck.
I thought you said disagreement was okay?
In any event, as I said before, there's no need for new tokens because it's trivial to keep track as it is - even at higher RELs.
You shouldn't be changing the rules to encourage sloppy play.
I've done none of the things you're accusing me of. I've offered a lot of comments that you've ignored. Have a good day.