Third time’s the charm.

First of all, don’t panic. What looks like a lot of new words maintains much of the previous philosophy. There’s only one change of substance, and a bunch more guidance. I’m sure adding 4000 words of my own ramblings also makes it seem bigger than it is; feel free to do a search for the TL;DR below, or check out the summary for judges.

There was actually a lot to like about the previous iteration of the trigger policy. It encouraged fantastic communication between the players. Judge calls for he-said-she-said situations were down. The remedy, where the opponent makes the decision on what happens next was both popular and intuitive. In general, a lot of players and judges found it to be an improvement over the lapsing approach, and this iteration reflects that. It’s a much smaller leap than the previous change.

Where things were less successful was in how a trigger was considered missed. We want players to not have to point out their opponent’s triggers. In order to do that and not put opponent in a bad situation, triggers need to expire at some point – I can’t act with any certainty if there’s a chance that a trigger will randomly resolve at a later point. The rules that we had in place for that were simple and elegant and mechanically correct.

The problems arose when the policy came into collision with how people play Magic in real life. Humans aren’t precise, and how they think about the game isn’t really in terms of priority but as a sequence of actions and states, caring about the results of the triggers, not their cause. This gap meant that it was pretty easy to get someone to technically miss a trigger that they were fully cognizant of. That’s an awful feeling, both for the person who has just been tricked out of a trigger and for the competitive player who knows that they’ve pulled a fast one.

We’re sensitive to these concerns, and certainly weren’t ignoring all the articles, tweets and emails talking about the problems with the policy. Magic is a game and should be fun to play at all levels of competition. Lots of rules are designed to minimize these ‘gotcha’ moments that represent the antithesis of fun for most people. It’s why much of the shortcut section exists in the MTR.

On one level, it was tempting to leave things as they were. There’s a certain amount of change fatigue that sets in, and everyone was mindful of that. Most people liked the parts of the policy that were important to us, but it was clear that the side-effects were going to need to be addressed. Letting a policy that’s clearly not meeting the needs of the players continue is worse than releasing yet another revision.

So, we took all the data from the last five months – yes, all those internet forums, all those articles; there were a lot of them! – and started brainstorming on what was working and what wasn’t. That gave us new goals to add to all the goals from last time:

Opponents not needing to mention the existence of triggers remained generally popular. Indeed, there was a desire to extend that down to Regular REL as well, so we’ve done that.

When a player missed a trigger, it needed to be such that they had to realistically acknowledge that yeah, they’d missed it. Using trickery to sneak a trigger away had to be discouraged to avoid the gotcha moments. As I mentioned earlier, this goal was the important one, and it’s the source of most of the change (and the cause of most of our headaches!)

The opponent had to be protected. This meant that they needed to be able to act with certainty about what’s happening in the game at any given point. Interestingly, whether the certainty was good or bad for them wasn’t important; the knowledge that they could act and know the consequences were what mattered.

Try to keep the complexity to a minimum. Failing that, make it so it’s intuitive most of the time. We knew that anywhere we went from the previous version was going to be more complicated, since that one was distilled down to nearly its simplest form. But if it was working, and the bulk of the remedy certainly was, we should try to maintain that continuity.

Easy!

Well, not really, but I hope we got there. I think it falls into the intuitive realm pretty well. 90% of the time, I believe a person who knew nothing other than “if someone really misses a trigger, the opponent decides” would make the right ruling. There’s obviously some devil in the details, and there’s a little more for the serious players to learn than the simple summary from last time. That was unavoidable.

So, we’ll go into detail about what this all means and why things are the way they are, but let me try to find a super short message you can use for your players:

You cannot choose to ignore your triggers (doing so remains Cheating).

Your opponent is not required to remind you if they don’t want to.

You have until a trigger requires a decision or visibly affects the game to remember and demonstrate awareness of it, after which point it becomes missed.

Once a trigger is missed, whether or not it happens is up to the opponent.

This obviously glosses over a lot of details and a few exceptions, so don’t just blindly follow it. But, it’s good enough for the TL;DR version. Are there rules to support it? You bet!

Note that the only one of those four bullet points that has changed is the third, so while there’s a lot more words upcoming, it’s not as far from the previous policy as it first appears. There’s quite a bit of continuity.

2.1. Game Play Error — Missed Trigger

Definition A triggered ability triggers, but the player controlling the ability doesn’t demonstrate awareness of the trigger’s existence the first time that it would affect the game in a visible fashion.

Declaring targets and making choices is visible, even though they’re abstract. Life totals are visible. But these are all things a player would be expected to acknowledge as the result of a trigger.

Note that the requirement is “demonstrate awareness”. For some reason, a lot of people thought that the previous policy required verbal announcement. This wasn’t the case, and never could be in a game played by players who might not share a language. Pointing at a card is demonstrating awareness, provided it’s not ambiguous.

The point by which the player needs to demonstrate this awareness depends on the impact that the trigger would have on the game:

This next bit’s a little scary, and it’s where we spent our complexity points. However, it’s mostly just technical expression of reasonably intutive concepts: stuff you need to do on announcement, stuff you need to do on resolution, and stuff that comes up later.

* A triggered ability that requires its controller to choose targets (other than ‘target opponent’), modes, or other choices made when the ability is put onto the stack: The controller must announce those choices before they next pass priority.

When a player plays an ability, if it has targets, it’s reasonable to ask them to announce those before doing anything else. We can skip target opponent because in 2-player games (which is the only thing supported by the MIPG) there’s no ambiguity and players don’t usually feel the need to declare that target.

* A triggered ability that causes a change in the visible game state (including life totals) or requires a choice upon resolution: The controller must take the appropriate physical action or make it clear what the action taken or choice made is before taking any game actions (such as casting a sorcery spell or explicitly moving to the next step or phase) that can be taken only after the triggered ability should have resolved. Note that casting an instant spell or activating an ability doesn’t mean a triggered ability has been forgotten, as it could still be on the stack.

Lots and lots of triggers fall into this bucket. Basically anything that “does” something physical on resolution: kill stuff, bring stuff back, add counters to stuff, tap stuff, etc. A player misses these when they make it explicitly clear that they’ve missed it: by playing a spell that you couldn’t otherwise play, or by trying to move (or just moving) to another phase. No losing them on technicalities, and if the opponent wants to act at instant speed but needs to know if the trigger is still on the stack, they have to ask about it directly, or we assume yes.

“Explicitly moving to the next step” does mean explicit. “Combat” (or just turning creatures sideways), “Go”, drawing for your turn. These are explicit. A pause is not, nor is trying any priority-grabbing tricks.

* A triggered ability that changes the rules of the game: the controller must prevent an opponent from taking any resulting illegal action.

These are effects that don’t change permanents, they change the game. Those effects just sit there quietly until they become relevant, at which point they need to be acknowledged. Pyreheart Wolf is a classic here. It’s missed if the opponent blocks with a single creature and the controller doesn’t point out that that’s an illegal block. Emrakul’s trigger also lands here. It’s missed when the controller lets the other person take the next turn.

* A triggered ability that affects the game state in non-visible ways: the controller must take physical action or make it clear what the action is the first time the change has an effect on the visible game state.

If you remember the days of no-visual-effect triggers, you’ll find this group has a lot in common with them, and it’s this bullet point that contains the vast majority of the change from the old version to the new one.

Essentially, the burden of proof for these triggers (and the rule-changing ones above, though those are rarer) switches. Instead of “If you fail to communicate this one when it resolves, we assume you missed it”, it’s now “We assume you remembered this trigger until you give concrete evidence that you didn’t”

The last part is important, though – players still need to be able to forget these triggers. If this wasn’t the rule, it would put the opponent in an awkward situation when the controller did something illegal as a result of forgetting, like deal 2 damage when a 2/1 Exalted creature attacked alone. Instead, we take that as confirmation that the trigger was forgotten. This only applies to triggers, of course. If the 2/1 Exalted is attacking and tries to deal 1 damage, you need to point out the error!

Once any of the above obligations has been fulfilled, or the trigger has been otherwise acknowledged, further problems are treated as a Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation.

This encourages players to communicate, since once you acknowledge a trigger, it’s locked in, even if you do so before you’re required to. It also means that if you mess up the resolution of a trigger – only doing half of a Sword effect, for example, it’s not missed, just misplayed.

Triggered abilities that do nothing except create delayed triggered abilities automatically resolve without requiring acknowledgment. Awareness of the resulting delayed trigger must be demonstrated at the appropriate point.

I mentioned this in an earlier blog post. Players shouldn’t care about the internal plumbing of Magic, and a delayed trigger is very much internal plumbing. Note that a certain class of delayed triggers get called out for special treatment during the remedy, so watch out for that.

Triggered abilities that do nothing except create one or more copies of a spell or ability (such as storm or cipher) automatically resolve, but awareness of the resulting objects must be demonstrated using the same requirements as described above (even though the objects may not be triggered abilities).

This part took a long time to get right. Technically, the objects created are spells (usually). But that’s also internal plumbing. From the player perspective, a trigger that copies a “draw a card” spell and puts it on the stack is a trigger that draws you a card, and ought to be treated as such – the “trigger” is really missed when you fail to draw that card. In the rare occasion when a player needs to interact with the spell copy, they still have the ability to call it out.

This also makes storm work the way everyone expects. If a player is sitting there waiting for their opponent to die, the opponent can’t claim that you missed all those copies. They’re still there.

Players may not cause triggered abilities controlled by an opponent to be missed by taking game actions or otherwise prematurely advancing the game. For example, if a player draws a card during his or her draw step without allowing an opponent to demonstrate awareness of a triggered ability, the controller still has an opportunity to fulfill the appropriate obligation by doing so at that point.

Triggers that happen on opponent’s turns need to be handled with a little more flexibility. This particularly applies to “do something on resolution” triggers, since the controller can’t play sorceries or actively advance the turn. You have to ask if they’ve been given a reasonable chance to acknowledge effects at a point after it should have resolved.

The Out-of-Order Sequencing rules (MTR section 4.3) may also be applicable, especially as they relate to batches of actions or resolving items on the stack in an improper order.

Technically, this is redundant. Out of Order Sequencing is a meta-rule that might always apply, but it’s important to make it clear that it does here. People need to relax and enjoy that they don’t need to help their opponent.

If a triggered ability would have no impact on the game, it’s not an infraction to fail to demonstrate awareness of it. For example, if the effect of a triggered ability instructs its controller to sacrifice a creature, a player who controls no creatures isn’t required to demonstrate awareness of the ability.

This solves what I call the “Chasm Drake problem”. Chasm Drake is the only creature in play. It attacks. If I don’t bother to point out the trigger (which will end up giving my flying creature flying) have I cheated? Without this bit of guidance, technically, yes. And that would be terrible.

Philosophy

Triggered abilities are common and invisible, so players should not be harshly penalized when forgetting about one. Players are expected to remember their own triggered abilities; intentionally ignoring one may be Unsporting Conduct — Cheating (unless the ability would have no impact on the game as described above).

Still true, and it’s important to remind people. Note the shiny new infraction, though.

Even if an opponent is involved in the announcement or resolution of the ability, the controller is still responsible for ensuring the opponents make the appropriate choices and take the appropriate actions. Players are not required to point out triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so if they wish.

One of the enduring memes in the Magic world is that triggers that require an opponent to do something are the opponent’s responsibility. “Hah, you didn’t pay 1 extra for Rhystic Study, I get to draw a card”. It just doesn’t work that way. When Rhystic Study resolves, you need to ask your opponent if they would like to pay 1. If they decline, you draw a card. Common courtesy!

Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately apparent. The opponent’s benefit is in not having to point out triggered abilities, although this does not mean that they can cause triggers to be missed. If an opponent requires information about the precise timing of a triggered ability or needs details about a game object that may be affected by a resolved triggered ability, that player may need to acknowledge that ability’s existence before its controller does.

This is, in many ways, the most important paragraph. It’s the vision statement and makes it clear to players what is and isn’t appropriate competitive behavior around triggers. If you take nothing else away from this article, take this paragraph to heart.

Here, I’m going to print it again. It’s that important.

Triggered abilities are assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated, and the impact on the game state may not be immediately apparent. The opponent’s benefit is in not having to point out triggered abilities, although this does not mean that they can cause triggers to be missed. If an opponent requires information about the precise timing of a triggered ability or needs details about a game object that may be affected by a resolved triggered ability, that player may need to acknowledge that ability’s existence before its controller does.

Time to make posters.

The controller of a missed triggered ability receives a Warning only if the triggered ability is usually considered detrimental for the controlling player.

This is a wording change from “generally detrimental”, which had a little more ambiguity than we were comfortable with, but it doesn’t actually change anything. The idea is that in most common game situations, this is a trigger you’d be happier not having resolve. Intuitively, that makes sense from a Warning standpoint. Yes, there are strange situations where you might benefit from your Vampire Lacerator, but realistically, that’s a card players want judges keeping an eye on. “Generally detrimental” was supposed to imply that there could be downsides to the ability but, on balance, you wanted it to happen. Instead we focus on what the expectation would be in a normal game.

Gatecrash has three usually-detrimental triggers in it. Only Spark Trooper is likely to see serious play, and the odds of that one being missed seems small. Overall, if you’re doing a Standard event, the number of Warnings you’ll be issuing will, hopefully, be minimal.

The current game state is not a factor in determining this, though symmetrical abilities (such as Howling Mine) may be considered usually detrimental or not depending on who is being affected.

This was one of those “intuitive sense” changes. We don’t want to evaluate game states, but triggers like Howling Mine (and Braids and Sulfuric Vortex) are clearly two triggers. One does something good/bad on my turn, then the opposite on your turn. Someone who forgets their own Howling Mine triggers is already being suitably handled. Someone who forgets ones on their opponent’s turns is someone who needs to be reminded to play a little tighter.

Whether a Warning is issued or not does not affect any additional remedies that may be applicable. Failure to Maintain Game State penalties are never issued to players who did not control the ability. Judges should not intervene in a missed trigger situation unless they intend to issue a Warning or have reason to suspect that the controller is intentionally missing his or her triggered abilities.

This separation got rather overlooked by the community in the last revision, as the idea got around that the detrimental determination affected what happened in the game. That would change things a lot (shades of lapsing!), but if we’d gone that way, we’d obviously spend a lot more time going into detail about how to determine “usually detrimental”. The guidelines are the same as before – ask yourself heuristic questions like “Would this card be better without the ability?” or “In most game situations, would I be glad to have this trigger” or “Did Wizards put this on the card to try to preempt some form of shenanigan?”.

Additional Remedy If the triggered ability specifies a default action associated with a choice made by the controller (usually “If you don’t …” or “… unless”), resolve it choosing the default option. If the triggered ability is a delayed triggered ability that changes the zone of an object, resolve it. For these two types of abilities, the opponent chooses whether to resolve the ability immediately or at the start of the next phase. These abilities do not expire and should be remedied no matter how much time has passed since they should have triggered.

As I mentioned earlier, zone-change delayed triggers are unintuitive. The majority of them are simply there to undo a previous zone change, and it’s quite common that players (and many judges) don’t even realize that they’re triggers – it’s very much internal plumbing. The important part happened on the front half of the spell or ability.

There are a very small number of zone-change DTAs that aren’t cleanup. Loyal Cathar and Grave Betrayal come to mind. That’s an acceptable tradeoff for not having Geist of Saint Traft tokens sticking around or Ghost Councils staying exiled forever.

Why the extra timing rule? We want to minimize how much disruption the problem causes. A Geist of Saint Traft angel should almost always go away immediately if it’s discovered in combat. Should a Ghost Council return then? One or the other is likely to be disruptive in any given situation, so the opponent is a good person to decide how to minimize it. It also means that reanimation works the way we’d want it to – if I target your Loyal Cathar with Animate Dead, I can choose to get it before the trigger (that you’ve obviously missed by then) would resolve.

If the triggered ability creates an effect whose duration has already expired or the ability was missed prior to the current phase in the previous player’s turn, instruct the players to continue playing. If the triggered ability isn’t covered by the previous two paragraphs, the opponent chooses whether the triggered ability is added to the stack. If it is, it’s inserted at the appropriate place on the stack if possible or on the bottom of the stack. No player may make choices involving objects that were not in the appropriate zone or zones when the ability should have resolved. For example, if the ability instructs a player to sacrifice a creature, that player can’t sacrifice a creature that wasn’t on the battlefield when the ability should have resolved.

This should look very familiar. As a whole, the answer to “what should happen when a trigger is actually forgotten” was really good and only needed minor tweaks. All the effort was devoted to the “actually” part, and we’re hopeful that the instructions above hit the right spot for that.

In general, each revision of the policy has gotten us closer to something that makes Competitive REL players and judges happy and I’m hopeful that this version continues the streak. The IPG remains a living document, reflecting the ever-changing nature of the game, and we’ll continue to revise it until it’s perfect… at which point something new will force us to keep going!