You may choose not to point out mandatory triggers your opponent misses. But you may not choose to miss your own mandatory triggers.
See, this is what's confusing me. The IPG says:
Quote from 1.4 »
At Competitive and Professional REL, some additional triggered abilities and enters-the-battlefield replacement effects are considered optional. The player is not required to follow the instruction when the ability resolves, and if the ability is forgotten it will not retroactively be applied.
Quote from 3.1 »
If the trigger instruction is optional (“may”, or “up to X” where zero is a valid choice) and specifies no consequence for not doing it, or the trigger is an optional ability (section 1.4), assume that the player has chosen not to perform the instruction and issue no penalty.
This reads to me like you can willfully choose to miss a mandatory trigger if it's an "optional ability," and that even if an opponent calls a judge, he or she can't do anything about it.
To throw another hypothetical out there:
We're playing in a Modern PTQ. On turn 1 I play a Plains into a Steppe Lynx. My opponent plays an Island and says go. On my turn 2 I play an Arid Mesa, fetching up a Stomping Ground untapped, and cast Qasali Pridemage. I turn my Lynx sideways.
My opponent asks "How big is that?" I say nothing (derived information).
My opponent declines to play any effects during combat, and I reach for my life pad to write down 5 damage. My opponent calls a judge claiming that I "missed" the triggers and I shouldn't be allowed to have them "retroactively applied." I argue that I remembered the triggers all along, just like I've been doing before this IPG change happened, and by not verbalizing every single time something triggers I'm simply behaving like 99.9% of all non-robotic Magic players out there.
This reads to me like you can willfully choose to miss a mandatory trigger if it's an "optional ability," and that even if an opponent calls a judge, he or she can't do anything about it.
To throw another hypothetical out there:
We're playing in a Modern PTQ. On turn 1 I play a Plains into a Steppe Lynx. My opponent plays an Island and says go. On my turn 2 I play an Arid Mesa, fetching up a Stomping Ground untapped, and cast Qasali Pridemage. I turn my Lynx sideways.
My opponent asks "How big is that?" I say nothing (derived information).
My opponent declines to play any effects during combat, and I reach for my life pad to write down 5 damage. My opponent calls a judge claiming that I "missed" the triggers and I shouldn't be allowed to have them "retroactively applied." I argue that I remembered the triggers all along, just like I've been doing before this IPG change happened, and by not verbalizing every single time something triggers I'm simply behaving like 99.9% of all non-robotic Magic players out there.
Who wins?
You, if I'm not mistaken. But not for the reason you want.
Quote from IPG »
Puts +x/+x counters, or counters linked to a beneficial effect, on a permanent you control.
• Gives +x/+x or a beneficial ability to a target creature you control.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH: UUUJin-Gitaxias, Core AugurUUU
Modern WWWHatebearsWWW
This reads to me like you can willfully choose to miss a mandatory trigger if it's an "optional ability," and that even if an opponent calls a judge, he or she can't do anything about it.
To throw another hypothetical out there:
We're playing in a Modern PTQ. On turn 1 I play a Plains into a Steppe Lynx. My opponent plays an Island and says go. On my turn 2 I play an Arid Mesa, fetching up a Stomping Ground untapped, and cast Qasali Pridemage. I turn my Lynx sideways.
My opponent asks "How big is that?" I say nothing (derived information).
My opponent declines to play any effects during combat, and I reach for my life pad to write down 5 damage. My opponent calls a judge claiming that I "missed" the triggers and I shouldn't be allowed to have them "retroactively applied." I argue that I remembered the triggers all along, just like I've been doing before this IPG change happened, and by not verbalizing every single time something triggers I'm simply behaving like 99.9% of all non-robotic Magic players out there.
Who wins?
You are reading too deeply.
Triggers are OPTIONAL if they fall under 1.4, even if they are Mandatory in non Competitive REL's
Mandatory triggers are very specific now, and everything else is optional.
If you dont verbalize your trigger for the lynx, you chose to not apply it.
Edit - As fnord pointed out below me, we may have a contradiction in the IPG now... Great.
You, if I'm not mistaken. But not for the reason you want.
Yup. So the following bit (which is unchanged in the latest update) applies:
Quote from "IPG" »
If the trigger requires no choices to be made and has no effect on the visual representation of the game, assume the ability resolved at the appropriate time and issue no penalty. The visual representation consists of elements the players are able to see happening or on the battlefield, such as zone changes and adding counters to permanents, as well as life totals.
This is insane. I am a lover of Oracle, and this seems to be a shortcut to avoid changing things in Oracle. The word may is now meaningless, since it is silently applied to hundreds of cards.
Fancy stuff like Angel of Despair mentioned earlier seem very odd. Also, is Double Strike beneficial is your guy has a Guilty Conscience on it?
Why is this raining down such confusion? Why do they not have an article explaining why this huge change is needed? Why make Transcendence the Platinum Angel enchantment that only works depending on how many judges are in the room and what day it is? It is like Elvish House Party. The deck does not work on Friday, but on Sunday it does.
My prediction is this rule change does not even make it until March. Just wait until a game is decided by the definition of what is optional and what is mandatory. We cannot even play Magic if Oracle does not even tell us how cards work anymore. Without Oracle, the game is nothing. Might as well try to play without a rulebook.
If that had been the intent, it would have said that. It just says "no obligation." Or, as the change summary says, "Opponents are no longer responsible for triggers."
Do you really think they intend that if your opponent misses a trigger you may or may not tell them, but you still have to call a judge either way?
Well it seems self contradictory otherwise. It is an offence to miss a mandatory trigger (otherwise there wouldn't still be an infraction for it), then knowingly seeing an opponent commit it and not immediately calling attention to it is one of the basic definitions of fraud.
I have a HUGE problem with a player being able to sit there not sacrificing a guygetting a guy destroyed to their opponent's Magus of the abyss 'because they'd lose otherwise'.
Well it seems self contradictory otherwise. It is an offence to miss a mandatory trigger (otherwise there wouldn't still be an infraction for it), then knowingly seeing an opponent commit it and not immediately calling attention to it is one of the basic definitions of fraud.
I have a HUGE problem with a player being able to sit there not sacrificing a guy to their opponent's Magus of the abyss 'because they'd lose otherwise'.
I don't want to get into the details of this case anymore until we hear more from the DCI (awesome of them to release a confusing rules update without explaining any of it; weren't they not updating anything till january 2nd, 2012 on their site?)
The thing I want to point out is in 3.1 and 3.7 changes, an opponent may choose not to point out any missed trigger now they don't control. I think 1.4, 3.1 and 3.7 are all supposed to play hand in hand. As of January 1st, I will not get a warning for failure to maintain gamestate if I don't point out my opponent missing a trigger on Shrine of burning rage.
Well it seems self contradictory otherwise. It is an offence to miss a mandatory trigger (otherwise there wouldn't still be an infraction for it), then knowingly seeing an opponent commit it and not immediately calling attention to it is one of the basic definitions of fraud.
I have a HUGE problem with a player being able to sit there not sacrificing a guy to their opponent's Magus of the abyss 'because they'd lose otherwise'.
I think the reasoning here is that the current rules are unfriendly to honest players. Let's say I forget a mandatory trigger that helps me. You notice.
Scenario 1: You're honest. You point it out. I handle the trigger properly.
Scenario 2: You're not honest. You don't point it out. The trigger is never handled.
So being honest ends up hurting you. Incentivising dishonesty isn't a good thing. So they've change the rules to remove your obligation to speak up. Now we have
Scenario 1: You're honest. You choose to ignore the missed trigger, which is now your privilege.
Scenario 2: You're not honest. You don't point it out. The trigger is never handled.
So now, the honest person doesn't suffer for being honest.
Well it seems self contradictory otherwise. It is an offence to miss a mandatory trigger (otherwise there wouldn't still be an infraction for it), then knowingly seeing an opponent commit it and not immediately calling attention to it is one of the basic definitions of fraud.
I have a HUGE problem with a player being able to sit there not sacrificing a guy to their opponent's Magus of the abyss 'because they'd lose otherwise'.
Under the CURRENT rules, i agree with you.
Under the new IPG, it is the player who controls the Magus, who is required to verbalize the trigger, and it is not the player who should have sacrificed's responsibility to point out the trigger anymore.
There will be a lot of relearning for judges, it seems.
what's the point of this? first off, what's good for the goose apparently isn't good for the gander, and that's a load of horse ****. why should it only apply to competitive/pro REL? second, why even bother doing this at all? all it's going to lead to is people trying to angle-shoot it to their advantage.
from what I'm seeing, with certain cards it's just legalized cheating.
Take your monoblack deck, then set aside 14 swamps. Add 4 Creeping Tar Pits, 4 Darkslick Shores, 4 Drowned Catacombs, and 2 Jwar isle Refuge and add 4 Jace, the Mindsculptors. Your monoblack deck is instantly better. Better yet, drop those refuges, throw in some islands and some mana leaks, and lo and behold, you're now playing a real deck. Congratulations. Welcome to the world of competitive M:TG.
I think the reasoning here is that the current rules are unfriendly to honest players. Let's say I forget a mandatory trigger that helps me. You notice.
Scenario 1: You're honest. You point it out. I handle the trigger properly.
Scenario 2: You're not honest. You don't point it out. The trigger is never handled.
So being honest ends up hurting you. Incentivising dishonesty isn't a good thing. So they've change the rules to remove your obligation to speak up. Now we have
Scenario 1: You're honest. You choose to ignore the missed trigger, which is now your privilege.
Scenario 2: You're not honest. You don't point it out. The trigger is never handled.
So now, the honest person doesn't suffer for being honest.
Sounds more like they're making dishonesty "honest"
from what I'm seeing, with certain cards it's just legalized cheating.
It's not cheating if the rules allow it.
It's like when they started allowing you to change your deck between matches in Limited events which don't use decklists, something previously only done by cheaters.
I think the reasoning here is that the current rules are unfriendly to honest players. Let's say I forget a mandatory trigger that helps me. You notice.
Scenario 1: You're honest. You point it out. I handle the trigger properly.
Scenario 2: You're not honest. You don't point it out. The trigger is never handled.
So being honest ends up hurting you. Incentivising dishonesty isn't a good thing. So they've change the rules to remove your obligation to speak up. Now we have
Scenario 1: You're honest. You choose to ignore the missed trigger, which is now your privilege.
Scenario 2: You're not honest. You don't point it out. The trigger is never handled.
So now, the honest person doesn't suffer for being honest.
It's scenario 3 I'm most concerned about:
You're not honest. You don't point it out. Your opponent notices and it's found you knew.
Before that was a DQ, now it's 'oh sure, that's fine'.
I don't think that's such a great idea.
It's scenario 3 I'm most concerned about:
You're not honest. You don't point it out. Your opponent notices and it's found you knew.
Before that was a DQ, now it's 'oh sure, that's fine'.
I don't think that's such a great idea.
But how many people were actually DQed for missing opponents' triggers? It's such a common occurrence and so hard for a judge to be confident enough that it's intentional.
Can you point some examples of angle-shooting, or how some cards legalize cheating?
Off the top of my head - In modern, Martyr of Sands screams "prime suspect" in terms of non-verbalization of how much life you choose to gain, whether or not you chose to gain the life, and how well your opponent kept track of your life total. The important point is that while an opponent could theoretically watch you like a hawk and force you to announce every point of life gained during the entire match, it's just as easy for me to argue in front of a judge that I revealed 6 white cards, not 4 as my opponent mistakenly believes.
Second easy example - Vendilion Clique. Most people are already aware of the issues with flopping your hand on the table before the controller or clique announces his target, but consider the potential scumbaggery of using clique on yourself, choosing not to draw a card after sending a card to the bottom of your library, then accusing your opponent of drawing an extra card. This gets incredibly hard to dispute as the game progresses, especially when you don't have to announce the fact that you are declining to draw a card. Of course, this gives every opponent (and yourself) a rather large incentive to become a rules lawyer, writing down the outcome of every single triggered and ETB-replacement ability that will be considered optional.
Vendilion clique is an especially devious example, since the trigger isn't a may ability, but the tuck effect IS a may ability (and now the draw effect is a may ability as well).
Off the top of my head - In modern, Martyr of Sands screams "prime suspect" in terms of non-verbalization of how much life you choose to gain, whether or not you chose to gain the life, and how well your opponent kept track of your life total. The important point is that while an opponent could theoretically watch you like a hawk and force you to announce every point of life gained during the entire match, it's just as easy for me to argue in front of a judge that I revealed 6 white cards, not 4 as my opponent mistakenly believes.
Second easy example - Vendilion Clique. Most people are already aware of the issues with flopping your hand on the table before the controller or clique announces his target, but consider the potential scumbaggery of using clique on yourself, choosing not to draw a card after sending a card to the bottom of your library, then accusing your opponent of drawing an extra card. This gets incredibly hard to dispute as the game progresses, especially when you don't have to announce the fact that you are declining to draw a card. Of course, this gives every opponent (and yourself) a rather large incentive to become a rules lawyer, writing down the outcome of every single triggered and ETB-replacement ability that will be considered optional.
Vendilion clique is an especially devious example, since the trigger isn't a may ability, but the tuck effect IS a may ability (and now the draw effect is a may ability as well).
The examples only get more diverse in legacy.
From your examples, it is clear you dont understand the new rule, and will be very easy to DQ, if you try to abuse it.
Angle shot: Decree of Silence?
If your opponent plays a crappy spell you don't have to counter it if you don't want to
Bitterblossom just became a may trigger as well because it puts a permanent into play under your control so it can't kill you if you're low on life
It's fun trying to think of all of these things
Unfortunately, bitterblossom's trigger also causes loss of life. Like Dark Confidant's ability, this falls outside the scope of 1.4 and would get you in trouble if you chose not to make the token (and lose the life).
But how many people were actually DQed for missing opponents' triggers? It's such a common occurrence and so hard for a judge to be confident enough that it's intentional.
Probably the same number who stall at the end of round then say something along the lines of 'I slowed down so I could win'.
Off the top of my head - In modern, Martyr of Sands screams "prime suspect" in terms of non-verbalization of how much life you choose to gain, whether or not you chose to gain the life, and how well your opponent kept track of your life total. The important point is that while an opponent could theoretically watch you like a hawk and force you to announce every point of life gained during the entire match, it's just as easy for me to argue in front of a judge that I revealed 6 white cards, not 4 as my opponent mistakenly believes.
The new rule doesn't apply, as that's an activated ability.
Second easy example - Vendilion Clique. Most people are already aware of the issues with flopping your hand on the table before the controller or clique announces his target, but consider the potential scumbaggery of using clique on yourself, choosing not to draw a card after sending a card to the bottom of your library, then accusing your opponent of drawing an extra card. This gets incredibly hard to dispute as the game progresses, especially when you don't have to announce the fact that you are declining to draw a card. Of course, this gives every opponent (and yourself) a rather large incentive to become a rules lawyer, writing down the outcome of every single triggered and ETB-replacement ability that will be considered optional.
Again, doesn't apply, as the trigger does not contain only things on the list.
A little unclear about the rules but if I read it correctly, would it mean that if I had no cards left in the library and play Wall of Omens, I can opt to draw nothing?
A little unclear about the rules but if I read it correctly, would it mean that if I had no cards left in the library and play Wall of Omens, I can opt to draw nothing?
Correct. Drawing cards is on the list and the trigger does nothing else, so it is now optional at Competitive/Professional.
See, this is what's confusing me. The IPG says:
This reads to me like you can willfully choose to miss a mandatory trigger if it's an "optional ability," and that even if an opponent calls a judge, he or she can't do anything about it.
To throw another hypothetical out there:
We're playing in a Modern PTQ. On turn 1 I play a Plains into a Steppe Lynx. My opponent plays an Island and says go. On my turn 2 I play an Arid Mesa, fetching up a Stomping Ground untapped, and cast Qasali Pridemage. I turn my Lynx sideways.
My opponent asks "How big is that?" I say nothing (derived information).
My opponent declines to play any effects during combat, and I reach for my life pad to write down 5 damage. My opponent calls a judge claiming that I "missed" the triggers and I shouldn't be allowed to have them "retroactively applied." I argue that I remembered the triggers all along, just like I've been doing before this IPG change happened, and by not verbalizing every single time something triggers I'm simply behaving like 99.9% of all non-robotic Magic players out there.
Who wins?
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
You, if I'm not mistaken. But not for the reason you want.
UUUJin-Gitaxias, Core AugurUUU
Modern
WWWHatebearsWWW
You are reading too deeply.
Triggers are OPTIONAL if they fall under 1.4, even if they are Mandatory in non Competitive REL's
Mandatory triggers are very specific now, and everything else is optional.
If you dont verbalize your trigger for the lynx, you chose to not apply it.
Edit - As fnord pointed out below me, we may have a contradiction in the IPG now... Great.
Yup. So the following bit (which is unchanged in the latest update) applies:
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Fancy stuff like Angel of Despair mentioned earlier seem very odd. Also, is Double Strike beneficial is your guy has a Guilty Conscience on it?
Why is this raining down such confusion? Why do they not have an article explaining why this huge change is needed? Why make Transcendence the Platinum Angel enchantment that only works depending on how many judges are in the room and what day it is? It is like Elvish House Party. The deck does not work on Friday, but on Sunday it does.
My prediction is this rule change does not even make it until March. Just wait until a game is decided by the definition of what is optional and what is mandatory. We cannot even play Magic if Oracle does not even tell us how cards work anymore. Without Oracle, the game is nothing. Might as well try to play without a rulebook.
Turn 2 Two Goblin Guide
Well it seems self contradictory otherwise. It is an offence to miss a mandatory trigger (otherwise there wouldn't still be an infraction for it), then knowingly seeing an opponent commit it and not immediately calling attention to it is one of the basic definitions of fraud.
I have a HUGE problem with a player being able to sit there not
sacrificing a guygetting a guy destroyed to their opponent's Magus of the abyss 'because they'd lose otherwise'.I don't want to get into the details of this case anymore until we hear more from the DCI (awesome of them to release a confusing rules update without explaining any of it; weren't they not updating anything till january 2nd, 2012 on their site?)
The thing I want to point out is in 3.1 and 3.7 changes, an opponent may choose not to point out any missed trigger now they don't control. I think 1.4, 3.1 and 3.7 are all supposed to play hand in hand. As of January 1st, I will not get a warning for failure to maintain gamestate if I don't point out my opponent missing a trigger on Shrine of burning rage.
I think the reasoning here is that the current rules are unfriendly to honest players. Let's say I forget a mandatory trigger that helps me. You notice.
Scenario 1: You're honest. You point it out. I handle the trigger properly.
Scenario 2: You're not honest. You don't point it out. The trigger is never handled.
So being honest ends up hurting you. Incentivising dishonesty isn't a good thing. So they've change the rules to remove your obligation to speak up. Now we have
Scenario 1: You're honest. You choose to ignore the missed trigger, which is now your privilege.
Scenario 2: You're not honest. You don't point it out. The trigger is never handled.
So now, the honest person doesn't suffer for being honest.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Under the CURRENT rules, i agree with you.
Under the new IPG, it is the player who controls the Magus, who is required to verbalize the trigger, and it is not the player who should have sacrificed's responsibility to point out the trigger anymore.
There will be a lot of relearning for judges, it seems.
from what I'm seeing, with certain cards it's just legalized cheating.
Sounds more like they're making dishonesty "honest"
Not sure if he's serious, but that's the potential problem we're facing.
It's not cheating if the rules allow it.
It's like when they started allowing you to change your deck between matches in Limited events which don't use decklists, something previously only done by cheaters.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
It's scenario 3 I'm most concerned about:
You're not honest. You don't point it out. Your opponent notices and it's found you knew.
Before that was a DQ, now it's 'oh sure, that's fine'.
I don't think that's such a great idea.
But how many people were actually DQed for missing opponents' triggers? It's such a common occurrence and so hard for a judge to be confident enough that it's intentional.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Off the top of my head - In modern, Martyr of Sands screams "prime suspect" in terms of non-verbalization of how much life you choose to gain, whether or not you chose to gain the life, and how well your opponent kept track of your life total. The important point is that while an opponent could theoretically watch you like a hawk and force you to announce every point of life gained during the entire match, it's just as easy for me to argue in front of a judge that I revealed 6 white cards, not 4 as my opponent mistakenly believes.
Second easy example - Vendilion Clique. Most people are already aware of the issues with flopping your hand on the table before the controller or clique announces his target, but consider the potential scumbaggery of using clique on yourself, choosing not to draw a card after sending a card to the bottom of your library, then accusing your opponent of drawing an extra card. This gets incredibly hard to dispute as the game progresses, especially when you don't have to announce the fact that you are declining to draw a card. Of course, this gives every opponent (and yourself) a rather large incentive to become a rules lawyer, writing down the outcome of every single triggered and ETB-replacement ability that will be considered optional.
Vendilion clique is an especially devious example, since the trigger isn't a may ability, but the tuck effect IS a may ability (and now the draw effect is a may ability as well).
The examples only get more diverse in legacy.
This
What previously may have been the scope of fraud/cheating is now legal so players just have to learn to accept that.
The 'steppe lynx contradiction' really needs a fix though because that's quite a serious problem.
I also don't like the idea that some cards function differently depending on the REL of the event you're playing in
Angle shot: Decree of Silence?
If your opponent plays a crappy spell you don't have to counter it if you don't want to
Bitterblossom just became a may trigger as well because it puts a permanent into play under your control so it can't kill you if you're low on life
It's fun trying to think of all of these things
From your examples, it is clear you dont understand the new rule, and will be very easy to DQ, if you try to abuse it.
Neither card changed under 1.4
Nothing changed on Bitterblossom, it is Mandatory under 1.4, not Optional
Unfortunately, bitterblossom's trigger also causes loss of life. Like Dark Confidant's ability, this falls outside the scope of 1.4 and would get you in trouble if you chose not to make the token (and lose the life).
Probably the same number who stall at the end of round then say something along the lines of 'I slowed down so I could win'.
The new rule doesn't apply, as that's an activated ability.
Again, doesn't apply, as the trigger does not contain only things on the list.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Correct. Drawing cards is on the list and the trigger does nothing else, so it is now optional at Competitive/Professional.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Derp. Mis-interpreted clique, as I thought the draw efffect was a separate trigger from the tuck effect.