Are you a Quiet Speculation member?
If not, now is a perfect time to join up! Our powerful tools, breaking-news analysis, and exclusive Discord channel will make sure you stay up to date and ahead of the curve.
In a recent article by Chris VanMeter he mentioned that he played a match in which his opponent forgot a lot of Eidolon of the Great Revel triggers. During the match, Chris would remind his opponent when the Eidolon was supposed to damage the opponent but would let the opponent forget when the Eidolon was supposed to damage Chris. This excerpt upset some people.
The most important aspect of the ensuing debate is that Chris's actions were completely within the context of the rules. As a matter of fact, the update that made this so was relatively recent, as there was a time not long ago when you and your opponent were both responsible for remembering any and all triggers. Now you only need to remember your own and your opponent will likely only remind you if its beneficial to them.
This is literally the intention of the rules update. It stops opponents from being penalized when you forget your triggers, as previously both players would be charged with failing to maintain game state. There is, of course, some gamesmanship that comes with this, but many would contend that remembering your triggers is part of learning how your deck works.
Still, some players consider this behavior unsportsmanlike. And maybe they're right, but then I wonder why their complaint is with Chris and not with the people who make the rules.
I compare this to the "invisible trigger" rule update with regard to exalted and prowess. Technically, you don't need to announced a change in a creature's power and toughness until it becomes relevant to the game state. Personally, I announce all of these triggers as they happen. Largely this is to cover myself so that I can point to the fact that I announced my triggers earlier if a discrepancy occurs later, but even still you'll rarely find me not announcing some triggers even though I don't have to.
That said, I never go after the people who don't announce these triggers. Even though I think that the rule is rather bad and is largely just a "gotcha!", it's not the fault of the players that the rules might need revision.
Personally I like not having to remember all of my opponent's triggers. It is important to remember that there are some things that your opponent might forget that you are obligated to remind them of. For example, "draw a card" either as part of the resolution of a spell or for the beginning of a player's turn is not a trigger, it is a mandatory action.
You still need to help your opponent remember these things and you are liable for doing so. Scrying as resolution of a spell is the same thing. The trigger rule's spirit isn't just to make your opponent forget everything, it's to make you liable for as few of your opponent's actions as possible, and it would be unreasonable to just counter opponent's spells and actions because they forget.
So what do you think? Do you think we should go back to reminding our opponents of all of their triggers, or is the current rule fine? Under the current rule, is it shady to not remind opponents of triggers?
The fact that the rules let you do something doesn’t necessarily make it socially acceptable to do so. The people attacking Chris are clearly motivated by this and consider the spirit of the rules to be to not try to abuse them. The problem with rules making is that you can’t really expect to be able to cover each and every case perfectly. You could argue that players have the responsibility to do the right thing regardless of what the rules say.
If this was a friendly game I would consider it totally unacceptable to not point out at least once that the Eidolon also triggers on my spells, while if it’s a high level tournament game I could see it go in the other direction. I certainly wouldn’t want to be responsible for each and every one of their triggers, but I do feel responsible for helping my fellow players have fun.
To me it would feel like an empty victory in any game if you win because your opponent forgets things.
I agree with the spirit of this. It depends on the REL. If I’m playing at my LGS during a pre-release, I’m reminding my opponent. If there’s prize money on the line, its about play skill. If you consistently can’t remember your triggers its not time to play with the big kids.
Winning in magic tournaments requires you to play better than your opponents. Forgetting your own triggers is not playing better than your opponents. Did his opponent deserve to win? I tend to be somewhat forgiving to opponents when I play, but I really can’t fault him for anything.
This seems fine to me. If you’re playing a card like Eidolon where it’s understood that you’ll potentially have to resolve a bunch of triggers, you really have no excuse for missing them. Especially since it’s probably an integral part of your gameplan.
In a big tournament, of course anything within the rules is acceptable. Sportsmanship, I feel, is reminding them after a game that they missed a trigger and calmly suggesting that they remember it for the next game and the rest of the tournament.
If it’s a small tournament like FNM, it’s a bit too harsh. If you REALLY need the money I can’t blame you, but otherwise you can make the experience better for newer players so they want to keep playing.
This is about where I stand. Being competitive is encouraged, but ultimately we are diplomats of the game.
This is exactly my stance as well. FNM is FNM. When cash is on the line you’re responsible for your own triggers. No different than giving someone a mulligan whiling playing golf for fun as opposed to doing it at a PGA event.
Don’t play Egotr if you are going to forget it’s triggers.
EOTGR?
EotGR
This is a competitive game. You paid to play but if you’re not playing to win then why are you there in the first place? You should know your deck intimately enough to know when triggers happen, for each player, or pay the price. In this case Chris’s opponent paid the price. Chris played by the established rules without “making up” some subset of rules based on “sportsmanship” or coddling the opponent.