Okay, so after watching turn 3 of game 2, I have to ask: Did WotC change the rules on triggers again? Because what I saw was that Ross played specter, said go as soon as he could, and when Gino tried to trigger the Eidolon, he was denied. And this is happening in the finals? I mean, if I could slap down a creature and say go before anyone else could think to have a response, the entire game has just become a matter of who's quicker with their words. And that seems like a bunch of BS to me.
No, the rules have not changed. That was indeed a missed trigger and it wasn't a matter of being quick with words because there is no such allowance. The trigger policy states that you have to show awareness of the trigger and that you cannot take a significant pause or take any other action. Eidolon's trigger is when a card is cast, not when it resolves or any other time. The turn before Ross played Frostburn and Gino correctly pointed to his Eidolon essentially right away and Ross took his 2. Depending on what was said he actually probably missed his trigger there as well,but Ross took it. The key thing the next turn was that Ross played his Specter, he waited a moment to which there was no response and then gave the pass turn gesture with his hands,then Gino reached for his lands to untap them and stopped and pointed to his Eidolon. So he missed his trigger when it was cast and further reinforced that he had forgotten it when he took the action of starting to untap his lands.
SkepticalAaron The IPG says absolutely nothing about not being able to "take a significant pause." What causes a trigger to be missed is taking another action that means we must be passed the point where the trigger could have happened, and I don't think "reaching to untap his lands" necessarily qualifies (the lands never actually untapped; players are free to touch their cards whenever they please). Even if it does, the bit where he touches his mountains is literally the only factor that's relevant to the policy - there's no "he missed his trigger because he didn't point it out early enough" as you imply.
Letting the spell resolve indicates he missed his trigger. Casting is where the trigger would be placed on the stack and letting the spell resolve and then going to untap your lands shows that the spell has resolved and you are intending to start your turn. A players actions/intent and what they say can, and is, taken into account. The way the game has been played in previous turns is also taken into account. This is part of the philosophy of the rules and judging and isn't necessarily hard written into the rules- that's what judges are for. People have tried to make rules lawyer arguments like "you can touch your cards whenever you want" and they always get ruled against. He wasn't just touching his cards,he was untapping them. A year or so ago at the Magic World Cup Stanislav Cifka tapped out and grabbed a Forbidden Alchemy from his graveyard to flash it back and got burned for lethal in response. He tried to make the argument, "well I never actually said flashback " because he had a counter spell in hand and wanted to use his mana for that instead and he got held to his flashback and lost the game. There is nothing specifically for that situation in the rules, other than just the general rules philosophy of "play the game, not the rules".
SkepticalAaron "Letting the spell resolve indicates he missed his trigger." Letting the spell resolve *would* mean that the trigger was missed, but there's nothing in this video that indicates the spell has resolved. Spells are not considered to have resolved just because the opponent doesn't respond within a certain timeframe - not saying anything isn't considered to be communication, and it certainly isn't considered to be an affirmation or passing priority. Until Bautista explicitly says otherwise (or performs an equivalent action), the spell is still on the stack waiting to resolve, and the trigger is not yet missed. "A players actions/intent and what they say can, and is, taken into account." Taking a player's perceived intent into account is an extremely dangerous path to go down. It is completely inappropriate for judges to ascribe intent to players who haven't explicitly stated it, or to make assumptions about what actions a player might take that they haven't yet taken, simply because you might be wrong. You don't just make an exception because "in this case it's extra obvious" - it's just flat out wrong to tell the player what they're thinking. Good judges don't do this. "People have tried to make rules lawyer arguments like "you can touch your cards whenever you want" and they always get ruled against." No, they don't always. Mainly because... you actually CAN touch your cards whenever you want. Also it's right there in black and white in the rules literature that players are expected to gain an advantage from superior rules knowledge, so I'm not sure how accusing someone of "rules lawyering" is supposed to weaken they're position. They're only wrong if they're actually wrong, not wrong because they're trying to rules lawyer. "He wasn't just touching his cards,he was untapping them." That's absolutely incorrect though, isn't it? Maybe he was *going* to untap them (I'm pretty sure he was) but the fact remains that he didn't get that far. Touching your lands doesn't constitute untapping them. Touching your lands isn't confirmation that it's your turn. There's nothing in the communication policy (MTR Chapter 4, if you're interested) or anywhere else in the rules that says otherwise. "A year or so ago at the Magic World Cup Stanislav Cifka tapped out..." One specific example isn't relevant to policy in general - each ruling will be made based on discussions with the players, something we don't have access to here. In any case, the Cifka scenario is so hugely different that bringing it up here makes no sense. Obviously we're lacking audio, and it's easy to imagine that the players said something which means the trigger is deemed missed (I would guess that there probably is) but we don't actually have the audio, so we can only comment on the video. Based on the video and the video alone, the trigger is absolutely NOT missed.
As odd as it sounds, as long as she meets devotion upon entering she is in fact a creature. There's nothing that keeps her just an enchantment upon entering the battlefield unless of course you are lacking devotion.
That's what I think is weird because a few months back I remember reading an article on this and it saying that it couldn't trigger and in a few tournaments I've seen people not let it trigger and some people trigger so I think it's just very confusing but thank you for your clarification.
Trey Tyson Devotion is a continuous effect, which means the game constantly checks it at all times. With God's (in this case Thassa) entering the battlefield, if the appropriate devotion is already met on the battlefield before the God enters the battlefield,then it enters as a creature because the game is saying "You have 5 devotion" and Thassa says "I'm coming in, if my devotion is at least 5,I'm going to be a creature". Its the same concept as when you have a Spear of Heliod out. Spear say's all your creatures get +1/+1, so every creature will enter with the buff already applied. The game doesn't wait around with continuous effects,they are just always there.
That missed trigger seemed a tad unsportsmanlike. We can't hear what was said but there was only a pause of about 3 seconds before Merriam said 'go'. He might've played the Spectre and Bautista said ok sure but it happened very quickly.
Okay, so after watching turn 3 of game 2, I have to ask: Did WotC change the rules on triggers again? Because what I saw was that Ross played specter, said go as soon as he could, and when Gino tried to trigger the Eidolon, he was denied. And this is happening in the finals?
I mean, if I could slap down a creature and say go before anyone else could think to have a response, the entire game has just become a matter of who's quicker with their words. And that seems like a bunch of BS to me.
Me too.
No, the rules have not changed. That was indeed a missed trigger and it wasn't a matter of being quick with words because there is no such allowance. The trigger policy states that you have to show awareness of the trigger and that you cannot take a significant pause or take any other action. Eidolon's trigger is when a card is cast, not when it resolves or any other time. The turn before Ross played Frostburn and Gino correctly pointed to his Eidolon essentially right away and Ross took his 2. Depending on what was said he actually probably missed his trigger there as well,but Ross took it. The key thing the next turn was that Ross played his Specter, he waited a moment to which there was no response and then gave the pass turn gesture with his hands,then Gino reached for his lands to untap them and stopped and pointed to his Eidolon. So he missed his trigger when it was cast and further reinforced that he had forgotten it when he took the action of starting to untap his lands.
SkepticalAaron The IPG says absolutely nothing about not being able to "take a significant pause." What causes a trigger to be missed is taking another action that means we must be passed the point where the trigger could have happened, and I don't think "reaching to untap his lands" necessarily qualifies (the lands never actually untapped; players are free to touch their cards whenever they please). Even if it does, the bit where he touches his mountains is literally the only factor that's relevant to the policy - there's no "he missed his trigger because he didn't point it out early enough" as you imply.
Letting the spell resolve indicates he missed his trigger. Casting is where the trigger would be placed on the stack and letting the spell resolve and then going to untap your lands shows that the spell has resolved and you are intending to start your turn. A players actions/intent and what they say can, and is, taken into account. The way the game has been played in previous turns is also taken into account. This is part of the philosophy of the rules and judging and isn't necessarily hard written into the rules- that's what judges are for. People have tried to make rules lawyer arguments like "you can touch your cards whenever you want" and they always get ruled against. He wasn't just touching his cards,he was untapping them. A year or so ago at the Magic World Cup Stanislav Cifka tapped out and grabbed a Forbidden Alchemy from his graveyard to flash it back and got burned for lethal in response. He tried to make the argument, "well I never actually said flashback " because he had a counter spell in hand and wanted to use his mana for that instead and he got held to his flashback and lost the game. There is nothing specifically for that situation in the rules, other than just the general rules philosophy of "play the game, not the rules".
SkepticalAaron "Letting the spell resolve indicates he missed his trigger."
Letting the spell resolve *would* mean that the trigger was missed, but there's nothing in this video that indicates the spell has resolved. Spells are not considered to have resolved just because the opponent doesn't respond within a certain timeframe - not saying anything isn't considered to be communication, and it certainly isn't considered to be an affirmation or passing priority. Until Bautista explicitly says otherwise (or performs an equivalent action), the spell is still on the stack waiting to resolve, and the trigger is not yet missed.
"A players actions/intent and what they say can, and is, taken into account." Taking a player's perceived intent into account is an extremely dangerous path to go down. It is completely inappropriate for judges to ascribe intent to players who haven't explicitly stated it, or to make assumptions about what actions a player might take that they haven't yet taken, simply because you might be wrong. You don't just make an exception because "in this case it's extra obvious" - it's just flat out wrong to tell the player what they're thinking. Good judges don't do this.
"People have tried to make rules lawyer arguments like "you can touch your cards whenever you want" and they always get ruled against."
No, they don't always. Mainly because... you actually CAN touch your cards whenever you want. Also it's right there in black and white in the rules literature that players are expected to gain an advantage from superior rules knowledge, so I'm not sure how accusing someone of "rules lawyering" is supposed to weaken they're position. They're only wrong if they're actually wrong, not wrong because they're trying to rules lawyer.
"He wasn't just touching his cards,he was untapping them."
That's absolutely incorrect though, isn't it? Maybe he was *going* to untap them (I'm pretty sure he was) but the fact remains that he didn't get that far. Touching your lands doesn't constitute untapping them. Touching your lands isn't confirmation that it's your turn. There's nothing in the communication policy (MTR Chapter 4, if you're interested) or anywhere else in the rules that says otherwise.
"A year or so ago at the Magic World Cup Stanislav Cifka tapped out..."
One specific example isn't relevant to policy in general - each ruling will be made based on discussions with the players, something we don't have access to here. In any case, the Cifka scenario is so hugely different that bringing it up here makes no sense.
Obviously we're lacking audio, and it's easy to imagine that the players said something which means the trigger is deemed missed (I would guess that there probably is) but we don't actually have the audio, so we can only comment on the video. Based on the video and the video alone, the trigger is absolutely NOT missed.
Thassa can't trigger cloudfin raptor because it's not a creature until after it enters the battlefield and counts devotion.
As odd as it sounds, as long as she meets devotion upon entering she is in fact a creature. There's nothing that keeps her just an enchantment upon entering the battlefield unless of course you are lacking devotion.
That's what I think is weird because a few months back I remember reading an article on this and it saying that it couldn't trigger and in a few tournaments I've seen people not let it trigger and some people trigger so I think it's just very confusing but thank you for your clarification.
Trey Tyson
Devotion is a continuous effect, which means the game constantly checks it at all times. With God's (in this case Thassa) entering the battlefield, if the appropriate devotion is already met on the battlefield before the God enters the battlefield,then it enters as a creature because the game is saying "You have 5 devotion" and Thassa says "I'm coming in, if my devotion is at least 5,I'm going to be a creature". Its the same concept as when you have a Spear of Heliod out. Spear say's all your creatures get +1/+1, so every creature will enter with the buff already applied. The game doesn't wait around with continuous effects,they are just always there.
Classy guy made sure he reminded his opp of the trigger when it was the other way round.
That missed trigger seemed a tad unsportsmanlike. We can't hear what was said but there was only a pause of about 3 seconds before Merriam said 'go'. He might've played the Spectre and Bautista said ok sure but it happened very quickly.
boring game red just loses no matter what
One fanatic of mogis in game 1 would have done it for Gino.
But it is a very lop sided matchup, that is true.