Andy and Neil are playing a match at a Standard GPT. Neil controls a Phantasmal Image that is a copy of Sun Titan, and no other creatures.

Andy passes turn, and Neil casts Restoration Angel during the end step. Neil untaps, draws, and casts Delver of Secrets. After it resolves, Andy realizes that the Angel’s triggered ability was missed and calls a judge.

After determining that Neil did not intentionally miss his trigger, what is the appropriate infraction/penalty/fix, if any?

Judges, feel free to discuss this scenario here!

[expand title=”View Answer”]

As we were reminded, even a “may” ability must be placed on the stack and target something (if applicable), and the choice of whether to use the “may” ability is made on resolution. This is why we can’t just assume that Neil chose not to use the ability by failing to announce or acknowledge it, so we can determine that he missed it (this is a change from previous policy!). Be careful not to “coach” the players here by explaining how bad this will be for Neil. While Andy probably knows the consequence of the trigger going on the stack and that’s why he called the judge, we shouldn’t assume anything. As we’re within one turn since the trigger was missed, we simply ask Andy, “Would you like Neil to play the trigger?” If he says “yes,” we instruct Neil to put the trigger on the stack and choose a target. He cannot choose the Delver because he didn’t control it at the time the trigger was missed. This will ultimately result in the sacrifice of the Illusionary Sun Titan.

That leads us to the question of whether to assess a Warning penalty. While the trigger results in a negative outcome for Neil in this specific situation, we should not be using the game state to determine whether a trigger is “generally considered detrimental”. Rather than trying to strictly read Toby Elliott’s short set of guidelines for evaluating a trigger, just look at it and ask yourself, “Is this trigger something I normally wouldn’t want to happen?” Also remember that we’re not looking for “generally beneficial,” but rather “not generally detrimental.” It would be hard to justify calling the Angel’s trigger “generally detrimental” when it’s a “may” ability that so rarely has any kind of negative consequence.

As a point of clarification, Toby Elliott and Scott Marshall have authorized this blanket statement:

“A ‘may’ trigger is *never* detrimental.”

That makes it pretty simple to determine that the Angel’s trigger is not detrimental, and there is no Warning assessed for Neil (and of course Andy is never responsible for his opponent’s triggers).

We as judges should not intervene when we see a missed trigger unless we intend to issue a Warning, which we should only do in the case of a generally detrimental trigger. Of course, a player called us in this particular case, so we certainly should respond to the call and handle it according to the policy.
[/expand]