Eudemonia July Results! Lists! Pics!

[Purple Hat]

Its not a state based effect. Its a triggered ability that triggers on a player casting a spell.  It should have triggered when lotushead cast sphere, before he passes priority. 

To me the question is whether it is ok to not announce a trigger that happens until significantly later in order to gain an advantage.

[bactgudz]

Its not a state based effect. Its a triggered ability that triggers on a player casting a spell.  It should have triggered when lotushead cast sphere, before he passes priority.  

To me the question is whether it is ok to not announce a trigger that happens until significantly later in order to gain an advantage.

You don't have to announce triggers when they trigger, only by the time they would produce observable effects. The classic example is exalted...swing with a guy 2/2, "no blocks". "take 3" is acceptable; whereas that sentence with "take 2" is a missed trigger. [note this ipg example is exactly opposite to an ipg example used before the last change, which is part of what confuses people]

MTR:
4.4
Triggered Abilities
Players are expected to remember their own triggered abilities; intentionally ignoring one is Cheating.
Players are not required to point out the existence of triggered abilities that they do not control, though they may do so within a turn if they wish.
Triggered abilities are considered to be forgotten by their controller once they have taken an action past the point where the triggered ability would have an observable impact on the game. Triggered abilities that are forgotten are not considered to have gone onto the stack.

The IPG section 2.1 also makes this clear:
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.

[Cruel Ultimatum]

To me the question is whether it is ok to not announce a trigger that happens until significantly later in order to gain an advantage.

I don't think your opponent passing priority once is considering significantly later. But the trigger is on the stack regardless of it you announce it. The missed part is about resolving it, not putting it on the stack.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/233

A triggered ability that changes the rules of the game.

This case includes triggered abilities like the one Pyreheart Wolf has. It changes the rules governing some aspect of the game, often attacking and blocking. You are expected to mention the ability when it first has an effect, and you must prevent opponents from taking any resulting illegal actions. For example, if you attack with Pyreheart Wolf and your opponent attempts to block with one creature, you must inform your opponent that that is an illegal block, and blockers must be redeclared.

[PucktheCat]

Copied over from the Rules Forum, where they apparently do not allow analysis of hypotheticals, I will make the argument that it is cheating:

Rule 4.4 (excerpt)
Players are expected to remember their own triggered abilities; intentionally ignoring one is Cheating.

This seems to apply.  LotusHead admits, for purposes of our discussion, that he intentionally ignored his own trigger.  There is no reference in this clause of the rule to the "observable impact" language that appears in the other rules regarding "forgotten" triggers.  This wasn't a forgotten trigger.  It was an intentionally ignored trigger.  That is cheating.

[Samoht]

Copied over from the Rules Forum, where they apparently do not allow discussion of hypotheticals, I will make the argument that it is cheating for discussion purposes:

Rule 4.4 (excerpt)
Players are expected to remember their own triggered abilities; intentionally ignoring one is Cheating.

This seems to apply.  LotusHead admits, for purposes of our discussion, that he intentionally ignored his own trigger.  There is no reference in this clause of the rule to the "observable impact" language that appears in the other rules regarding "forgotten" triggers.  This wasn't a forgotten trigger.  It was an intentionally ignored trigger.  That is cheating.

He hasn't ignored it. In fact he is fully aware that it is there. He just hasn't announced it. There is a difference in those two points. Say I have a Standstill in play. I then play random card X and then you respond to it with a spell before I announce my Standstill had triggered. Clearly I'd be drawing three cards in this situation and not you. It's the same sort of thing in my opinion in regards to the timing. The fact that Chalice counters the spell is all but irrelevant to that portion of the discussion.

[Purple Hat]

To me the question is whether it is ok to not announce a trigger that happens until significantly later in order to gain an advantage.

I don't think your opponent passing priority once is considering significantly later. But the trigger is on the stack regardless of it you announce it. The missed part is about resolving it, not putting it on the stack.

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/233

A triggered ability that changes the rules of the game.

This case includes triggered abilities like the one Pyreheart Wolf has. It changes the rules governing some aspect of the game, often attacking and blocking. You are expected to mention the ability when it first has an effect, and you must prevent opponents from taking any resulting illegal actions. For example, if you attack with Pyreheart Wolf and your opponent attempts to block with one creature, you must inform your opponent that that is an illegal block, and blockers must be redeclared.

it's significant because it matters, not because of how much time it took.  in this instance you are intentionally misrepresenting the game state to gain an advantage.

[PucktheCat]

Samoht, of course he was aware of the trigger.  How else could he "intentionally ignore" it.  Intent requires knowledge.

[Prospero]

This is a tournament report.  This is where people can discuss decks, choices, etc.  This is not a place to tear down an upstanding member of the Vintage community.

There is no place on TMD where it is acceptable to call another person a cheater.  If you have a problem with the conduct of another player, you can discuss it in person, by email, PM, or by any other private means.  The moment that you decide that your opinion of someone as a cheater is for public consumption is the moment that a thread gets locked and you earn moderation on the part of the staff.

I am not going to hand out warnings for this, this time.  

Clariax will clarify the legality of the play.  Once that point has been made, this discussion will be over on TMD.  All threads regarding this issue will be locked.  It's time to drop this issue, folks.

[The Atog Lord]

For the record, what happened in our match in no way, shape, or form makes LotusHead a cheater. Not at all. I'm not a judge, but in the very worst case, he made a play that both he and I thought was legal, with no malice at all.