1

According to the IPG, when the opponent of a player who missed a trigger chooses to put it onto the stack, "No player may make choices for the triggered ability involving objects that would not have been legal choices when the ability should have triggered. 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 triggered."

I have been told that players are allowed to make such choices if it cannot be publicly verified whether such objects would have been legal choices when the ability should have triggered. For example, suppose Player A misses Acquisitions Expert's triggered ability, then Player B draws for turn, then the missed trigger is acknowledged and Player B decides to put it onto the stack. During resolution (assume Player A's party is now 1), Player B may reveal the newly drawn card, if and only if there has been no point after the ability should have triggered during which Player B had no cards in hand (so that whether a particular card was in the hand when the ability should have triggered cannot be deduced). Is this correct?

If so, does the game use the concept of sets from the IPG in making this determination? For example, suppose Player B for whatever reason wants Acquisitions Expert's triggered ability to go on the stack, but does not actually want to discard. Can Player B keep the card drawn for turn in a separate set away from the rest of the hand, then play out the rest of the hand, then acknowledge and put onto the stack Acquisitions Expert's triggered ability while only the drawn card remains in hand, and not reveal/discard that card because it can publicly verified as an ineligible choice in virtue of having been kept in a separate set?

7
  • 1
    It looks to me like your first question is directly answered by the last sentence of the IPG text you quoted.
    – murgatroid99
    Aug 27, 2022 at 4:42
  • @murgatroid99 Perhaps not directly, but I will agree it seems pretty safe to infer. The reason I included it explicitly is that some of the other questions assume the answer.
    – user10478
    Aug 27, 2022 at 4:45
  • 1
    If I am understanding correctly, you are asking whether you can (be made to) sacrifice a creature that wasn't on the battlefield when the ability would have triggered. And the IPG text says "that player can't sacrifice a creature that wasn't on the battlefield when the ability should have triggered". It can't be more direct than that.
    – murgatroid99
    Aug 27, 2022 at 4:47
  • @murgatroid99 Okay, you convinced me. I have removed that part of the question.
    – user10478
    Aug 27, 2022 at 4:54
  • In #2, is the player deliberately missing the trigger, taking steps from when the trigger should have been in furtherance of acknowledging the trigger later? How are they explaining their actions to their opponent? "oh, this card? I'm setting it aside in case there is anything that looks at it separately. You know, just in case." Aug 27, 2022 at 21:33

1 Answer 1

0

First, this is pretty academic since it's unlikely that player B would decide to put a trigger onto the stack that is detrimental to them this way (discarding a card). Now given that player B has allowed player A to put the trigger onto the stack, the rule for making choices that would have been legal at the time the trigger should have been put on the stack DOES apply. While it's not going to be easily verifiable, player B would have to reveal cards that were in their hand on the previous turn as part of the resolution of Acquisitions Expert if they allowed it to be put on stack and resolve at all. This is part of why there is a hard one turn limit on missed triggers, it's expected that the player will know what choices were legal to make for one turn, and that they won't actually cheat.

6
  • 1
    Do you have a source for this? "Expecting players not to cheat" is generally not how other MTG tournament procedures happen.
    – GendoIkari
    Aug 29, 2022 at 17:07
  • 1
    @GendoIkari there is no exception in the IPG for the requirement to make choices that would have been legal at the time because the choices include hidden information, though it would be possible to make a choice that wouldn't have been legal without any real way to prove it. I disagree with your premise, expecting players not to cheat is absolutely how magic runs, then lays out penalties and remedies if they are caught cheating (or unintentionally violating or misunderstanding rules)
    – Andrew
    Aug 29, 2022 at 18:05
  • I guess what I mean is that the rules in general require players to prove that the things they are doing are legal; they don't take players at their word. For example, any card that lets you search your deck for something specific requires you to reveal the found card. Or how unflipped morph creatures must be revealed at the end of a game to prove that they really had morph.
    – GendoIkari
    Aug 29, 2022 at 19:38
  • Or for Miracle, how you cannot mix a newly-drawn card into your hand and then cast that card for its miracle cost; you must reveal the card before it is mixed into your hand.
    – GendoIkari
    Aug 29, 2022 at 19:39
  • @GendoIkari That's the difference between the rules in the CR - defining how the game should work under normal circumstances, and JAR/the IPG, how a judge should go about fixing things during tournament play when they go wrong. This is about fixing things when they have already (accidentally) broken the rules, so things that normally aren't important might be, like which cards were drawn after something else was played, normally they don't need to be separate, so they aren't.
    – Andrew
    Aug 29, 2022 at 21:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .