MtgSuomi.fi
Muu MTG => Sääntöongelmat => Aiheen aloitti: KukistajA - 07.12.09 - klo 16:06
-
Meillä oli Jyväskylän PTQ:ssa pitkät keskustelut asian tiimoilta team Lindroos & Vallinin kanssa, ja lupasin herätellä keskustelua asiasta. Keskustelu etenee kronologisesti ja vastaus on aina saman henkilön seuraaviin quoteihin tai väritettyyn "judge"-sanaan saakka. Välin kursiivit on omia selityksiäni judgejargonille.
Minä: Team A is controlling Turntimber Basilisk and it is their turn. Person controlling the basilisk plays a land and and announces "landfall". Team B doesn't have effects and the trigger resolves, yet Team A doesn't announce the target for the trigger. Team B takes it as though they don't want to use the ability (since it is "may" even though the target needs to be chosen). Team A proceeds to combat, and attacks with the basilisk and some other creatures, and states that "your creature X blocks our basilisk". Team B isn't obviously happy about this and calls in a judge. They explain the situation, and get a ruling for resolving the trigger again since it was "forgotten", even though only targeting a creature was _either_ forgotten or intentionally not chosen. They appealed for HJ and got the same ruling.
Judge 1: Strangely, I don't see this as a missed trigger. Neither side has forgotten the trigger or the targeting. Team A knows that the trigger exists, but thinks that they should choose a target when the creature attacks rather than when the trigger is stacked. Team B knows that the trigger exists but thinks that Team A has elected not to use it and so that targets are not necessary. There has been no forgetting here, no missed triggers, only a misunderstanding of how the targeting rules work, and maybe also how this specific ability works. Therefore, this seems to me to be more of a Game Rules Violation for Team A for selecting targets at an inappropriate time. As such, we MIGHT back up and restack the trigger properly, but I think that the game has gone too far here, esepcialy with the choice of target now being stated. Waaaay too much info has been given in that attackers have been specified and target intent has been specified. I don't like backing up here.
So, my first inclination is to say that GRV for Team A and continue with no targets. Of course, FTMG for Team B.
However, we do have an interesting situation. Team B knew that Team A had announced the landfall trigger, and that Team A didn't specify a target. Therefore, Team A has improperly stacked a trigger, and Team B knows it. Team B is saying now that Team A used a shortcut by not selecting a target for a stacked, targeted trigger. No such shortcut has been established for this, though, and so Team B seems to be assuming a shortcut at their own risk. If they know that team A is stacking the trigger and if they know that targets must be chosen upon stacking, then Team B has an obligation to ask what the target is, so that game rules are folowed (if Team A says nothing, Team B does not have to point out the optional trigger).
Because Team B could gain advantage by not following targeting rules when they KNOW that a trigger has been stacked, they are coming dangerously close
to DQ for Fraud. If there were no "may", we'd be there now, but I can see that the "may" could cause some problems in Team B's thinking process.
Still, Team B knows that the trigger was acknowledged by Team A, and they know that targets must be chosen for the trigger, so assuming a shortcut
here is an iffy proposition. I'd have some questions for sure.
So Possible GRV, possibly Fraud. I don't think Missed Trigger in either case. If GRV, then backup to the land fall, or else play on. My vote is
play on.
GRV = Game Rule Violation; Sääntöjen vastainen pelaaminen
FTMG = Failure to Maintain Game State; Tilanne, jossa peli on päätynyt pisteeseen jossa sen ei pitäisi olla, mikäli oltaisiin pelattu oikein.
DQ (for fraud) = Disqualification; Turnauksesta pois sulkeminen, yleensä ilman palkintoja.
Minä: I think the card design in this case is a bit flawed. Even though using the triggered ability is optional, triggering it is not. Therefore Team B always has an obligation to remind Team A to put the trigger onto the stack, and when they do so, they also give Team A option to use the trigger they might have otherwise forgotten, since only choosing to use it is optional. This is the reason why I'd be more inclined to use the "target something and choose not to use"-shortcut, instead of forcing Team B to remind Team A to use optional abilities of their creatures just because the ability needs a target.
This sums up to a point where the targeting actually has no effect on the game whatsoever, but choosing to use the ability can have a huge effect on the game. As a judge I don't feel comfortable watching a game where person continously forgets to trigger a mandatory trigger, but neither I'd like to remind him on triggering it, because that would also remind him of actually choosing to use it."
Judge 2 (Scott Marshall): Of course, I'm going to use a different term than "flawed" - like, skill-testing, maybe. :)
I will admit that it feels a bit awkward when I'm playing, to target one of my opponent's creatures with a may ability that we both know I'm going to decline - things like "you may put a +1/+1 counter on target creature". But I do it, because I'm a rules nerd, and ... well, because *I* just kind of *HAVE* to do that.
But expecting all players to do that? Unrealistic. Criticizing the design of a card? Not really profitable. (Besides, it's very much like Provoke, and that was a fine mechanic, in my opinion.)
What I do find interesting about this thread, however, and part of the reason there's no O answer forthcoming? It's an interesting predicament, when opponent's screw up the communication that is the basis for a clean game state. And that's really what's happened here - so, what can we do? What is "by the book", applicable in the situation, yet fair in context?
And if there's no good answer, then the policy makers have an interesting discussion in their future, perhaps.
O answer = Official answer, Virallinen vastaus Level 4+ tuomarilta, joka hoitaa tuomareiden e-mail palstaa.
Judge 3: What I find interesting when going over the relevant sections of the IPG is the way we handle missed triggers. When deciding how to handle a missed trigger, we look to see if it was optional (whether it was a "may" effect), but we don't check to see if it was targeted at all. Then, "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, assume that the player has chosen not to perform the instruction and issue no penalty." So by that clause, if we caught the missed trigger after the fact, we would ignore that they didn't chose a target and do nothing. No infraction, no fix, no penalty.
However, while that makes perfect sense for a missed trigger that doesn't target, we all know that a targeted ability *does* need to have a target. Technically, I know that if they don't choose a target, then they have not correctly stacked the ability, and have thus committed a GPE:GRV. But philosophically, I also know that we tend to reward a player keeping careful attention to the gamestate. When someone "forgets" their optional trigger, we tend to make them lose that opportunity. Giving a GRV immediately after the fact fits with the IPG, but I definitely would feel awkward if I were to rewind and allow the player to stack the trigger, and thus still get the optional trigger they already "forgot." It definitely would provide a strong incentive for the opponent to hide the illegal play and not call a judge. That's not a circumstance I like to see created. I want opponents to call a judge on illegal plays, and for them to not be penalized for their vigilance. Given my choice, I feel all optional triggers should be allowed to be "forgotten," but that's not how I read the current rules.
So basically, by the book, it looks like this is a GPE:GRV for improperly stacking the trigger by not choosing a target. However, I personally wish that it were permitted that a "may" trigger be allowed to be missed, much like combat damage in 2HG is supposed to be assigned to a specific player, but is allowed to be left undeclared. But this would need a new shortcut or new rule to support it, which doesn't exist. So GRV it is for now, to me.
GPE:GRV = GRV = Game Play Error: Game Rules Violation
IPG = Infraction Procedure Guide; Vihkonen joka kertoo mihin kategoriaan kukin virhe lankeaa ja miksi, eri kategorioista jaettavat penaltyt, sekä miten tilanne voidaan korjata, jos mitenkään. Suositan myös pelaajia tutustumaan tähän läpyskään.
What I find interesting when going over the relevant sections of the IPG is the way we handle missed triggers. When deciding how to handle a missed trigger, we look to see if it was optional (whether it was a "may" effect), but we don't check to see if it was targeted at all.
Judge 4: I disagree. Or at least I disagree that it's so clear-cut. The IPG section for Missed Triggers simply specifies four different situations, or four
different forms of triggers, and explains how to handle them. Nowhere does it tell you to work through these four descriptions sequentially and stop as the first that seems to match (despite what the flow chart from the booklet may suggest). Also, I'm not sure that a targeted trigger is "optional without consequence". Yes, there's a "may" in the ability text, but you still have to make a non-optional, non-default choice: the target.
So basically, by the book, it looks like this is a GPE:GRV for improperly stacking the trigger by not choosing a target. However, I personally wish
that it were permitted that a "may" trigger be allowed to be missed, much like combat damage in 2HG is supposed to be assigned to a specific player, but is allowed to be left undeclared. But this would need a new shortcut or new rule to support it, which doesn't exist. So GRV it is for now, to me.
Judge 4: It seems to me that he "missed his trigger", because he did not perform a mandatory action: selecting a target. Looks like the fourth kind of missed trigger described in the remedy section to me. I think a "Missed Trigger" is the right thing; not GRV.
Nick's general sentiment brings me to my follow-up question. I agree that this situation "feels" like an optional trigger which it should be possible to forget without consequences. What, however, if the only legal target at the time the ability originally triggered was an Illusionary Servant (When ~ becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice ~.)? Now suddenly the trigger has a very profound impact on the game state, and I am not comfortable with just letting it slide; it "feels" much more like a trigger that needs to be stacked now (if caught within a turn cycle). But I'm sure that going by what I "feel" in each situation is certainly Not Good (with capital letters), because that would base the penalyt (and fix) on my assessment of the game state.
Also, I'm not sure that a targeted trigger is "optional without consequence". Yes, there's a "may" in the ability text, but you still have to make a non-optional, non-default choice: the target.
Judge 5: A couple months back I asked for an Official ruling about what happens when a player forgets a missed Explorer's Scope trigger. The answer was that Explorer's Scope is a mandatory trigger, even though it has that "may" bit in there. You still have to stack it.
Is this any different?
Technically, a targeted "may" trigger has been played incorrectly if a target isn't chosen. Even more technically, a non-targeted "may" trigger still gets stacked, and has therefore been played incorrectly if forgotten.
Policy, of course, needs to balance the abstract and technical Comprehensive Rules with the clear intent of Wizard R&D to have abilities that you're allowed to forget. This is a difficult problem.
Judge 6: The difference with Scope is that it contains a mandatory action - looking at the top card of your library. There is some effect that must
occur. With a targeted trigger (and no effect that might care about the ability targeting something), if the 'may' is declined, there is no effect on anything.
I have no issue with ruling that in the case of a targeted 'may' trigger, unless it is impossible (e.g. Illusionary Servant is the only creature on the battlefield, and the trigger needs a "target creature"), it is assumed to have been targeted on something on which the targeting has no effect, and the option was declined.
As for how this applies to the original ruling, I'm unsure.
**********************************************
TL:DR
Jos jollain permanentilla on triggeri joka targetoi jotain, mutta itse triggeriä ei ole pakko käyttää (Turntimber basilisk: Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, you may have target creature block Turntimber Basilisk this turn if able.), voiko triggerin unohtaa? Itse aion soveltaa seuraavaa: Kyllä voi.
Mitä tämä tarkoittaa pelaajalle? Vastustajallasi on kyseinen basiliski tiskissä, ja vastustaja pelaa ländin. Vaikka tiedät miten basiliski toimii, ja huomaat asian, ei tule penalttia vaikka et huomauta asiasta vastustajallesi. Triggerin voi myös "meni jo":ttaa.
Erona tilanteeseen jossa vastustajalla on Hedron Crab (Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, target player puts the top three cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard.) ja hän pelaa ländin + sinä tiedät ja huomaat asian mutta et sano triggeristä mitään, penaltyna on turnauksesta diskaus.
-
Mitäpä sitten, jos pelissä on Horobi, Death's Wail? Tai sanotaan vaikka Cephalid Aristocrat, koska nyt ukko jää kumminkin peliin kohteeksi valinnan jälkeen.
-
Mitäpä sitten, jos pelissä on Horobi, Death's Wail? Tai sanotaan vaikka Cephalid Aristocrat, koska nyt ukko jää kumminkin peliin kohteeksi valinnan jälkeen.
Mieleni teki jo palstalle postatessa disclaimata jotta unohdetaan Horobi & sen kaverit, koska ne eivät varsinaisesti liity itse ongelmaan. Jos triggerin ainoa _pakollinen_ osuus on targetin valinta, ja mikäli on olemassa joku targetti jota voi targetoida pelitilanteen siitä välittämättä, triggeri voidaan skipata. Tällainen targetti on esimerkin tapauksessa vaikka basiliski itse. Ja jos se Horobi tai Cowardice nyt sattuu pöytään eksymään, niin sitten mennään pidemmän kaavan mukaan ja triggeriä ei skipata.
-
Mieleni teki jo palstalle postatessa disclaimata jotta unohdetaan Horobi & sen kaverit, koska ne eivät varsinaisesti liity itse ongelmaan.
Minusta ne liittyvät ongelman toiseen versioon. Sanotaanpa, että Aristocrat on pelissä ja vastustajakin ihan oikeasti muisti Basiliskin väärin, eli kusetusyrityksestä ei ole kyse. Tilanteessa on varmaankin mentävä takaisin kohteen julistamiseen, koska se on sääntöjen nojalla pakollista. Leikitään vaikka, että kaikilla muilla ukoilla on jostain syystä shroud. Mutta saako unohtanut pelaaja nyt myös valita käyttävänsä Basiliskiä?
-
...mikäli on olemassa joku targetti jota voi targetoida pelitilanteen siitä välittämättä, triggeri voidaan skipata...
Mikäli ei, triggeriä ei voi skipata. Tilanteen kannalta on merkityksetöntä onko pöydällä yksi vai kymmenen targettia jotka välittävät targetoinnista, niin kauan kun pelissä on myös targetti joka ei välitä targetoinnista. Shroudiesimerkissäsi pelissä on yksi laillinen targetti joka välittää targetoinnista, triggeriä ei siis skipata.
Väännetään ratakiskoa.
-
Itse aion soveltaa seuraavaa: Kyllä voi.
Kuinka paljon tämän tyyppiset asiat ovat kiinni tuomarista?
-
Kuinka paljon tämän tyyppiset asiat ovat kiinni tuomarista?
Samaisessa PTQ:ssa seurasin tilannetta, jossa pelaaja A hyökkäsi parilla äijällä, täppäsi ne ja jäi odottavasti tuijottamaan vastustajaa. Pelaaja B otti asian priorityn pässäämisenä ja alkoi järjestelemään blokkereita. Muutaman sekunnin jälkeen pelaaja A sanoo "mulla on efektejä ennen blokkereita". Valitettavasti IPG:ssä ei kerrota, että yli 5.5 sekunnin odottava tuijotus tarkoittaa priorityn pässäämistä, ja jos IPG ei anna vastausta, tuomari soveltaa. (Mielestäni priority pässättiin, ja annoin pelaajan B blokata.)
Vastauksena kysymykseesi: Hyvin paljon.
-
Voisi myös pelaajille kertoa, että puhuvat toisilleen, niin ei tarvii alahuulen asennosta päätellä mitä se vihollinen meinaa.
~jari
-
Kiitos Kukistajalle että jaksoi ryhtyä selvittämään tätä asiaa.
Basiliskiin liittyvä tlanne tuli tosiaan eteen Worldsien side eventissä. Sama tilanne tuli eteen myös Jyväskylässä järjestetyssä PTQ:saa.
Luigi maassa emme pyynnöistä huolimatta saaneet nähdäksemme kortin englanninkielistä wordingiä vaan tuomari käänsi wordingin italian kielisestä kortista ::) Tämä siis tapahtui päätuomarin jo ollessa paikalla, että appealatakkaan ei voinut.
-Jani