New Rules, and the Death of Oath?

[The Atog Lord]

It seems that, along with a new B+R announcement, Wizards has just released a new set of penalty guidelines (http://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/WPN/Main/Documents/Magic_The_Gathering_Infraction_Procedure_Guide_PDF2.pdf).

I'd like to call attention to Section 1.4, called Optional Abilities. Allow me to quote the important text:

Traditionally, some abilities include the word ‘may’ as part of their text, indicating that their effect is optional. At Competitive and Professional REL, some additional triggered abilities and enters-the-battlefield replacement effects are considered optional. The player is not required to follow the instruction when the ability resolves, and if the ability is forgotten it will not retroactively be applied. An optional ability does one or more of the following things, and nothing else:
• Gains you life or causes an opponent to lose life.
• Puts cards from your library, graveyard, or exile zones into your hand or onto the battlefield. This includes drawing cards.
• Causes opponents to put objects from their hand or the battlefield into the library, graveyard or exile.
• Puts a permanent into play under your control or gives you control of a permanent.
• Puts +x/+x counters, or counters linked to a beneficial effect, on a permanent you control.
• Gives +x/+x or a beneficial ability to a target creature you control.
• Exiles, damages, destroys, taps, or gives -x/-x to an opponent's target permanent. If the ability could target
your own permanents, it is not optional unless that ability could target an opponent.
• Gives you additional turns or phases.
• Counters a spell or conditionally counters a spell, but only when cast by an opponent.

I am not a judge, but if I am reading this correctly, then this means that Oath of Druids is no longer a deck, since the ability from Orchard is now something the opponent can decline (``Puts a permanent into play under your control or gives you control of a permanent.'')

Of course, I could be wrong. I could be missing something, and I hope that I am. Otherwise, we've just seen a radical change in this game.

EDIT: Fixed some previous statements. But it seems that Orchard still doesn't work anymore.

[bactgudz]

It seems that, along with a new B+R announcement, Wizards has just released a new set of penalty guidelines (http://www.wizards.com/ContentResources/Wizards/WPN/Main/Documents/Magic_The_Gathering_Infraction_Procedure_Guide_PDF2.pdf).

I'd like to call attention to Section 1.4, called Optional Abilities. Allow me to quote the important text:

Traditionally, some abilities include the word ‘may’ as part of their text, indicating that their effect is optional. At Competitive and Professional REL, some additional triggered abilities and enters-the-battlefield replacement effects are considered optional. The player is not required to follow the instruction when the ability resolves, and if the ability is forgotten it will not retroactively be applied. An optional ability does one or more of the following things, and nothing else:
• Gains you life or causes an opponent to lose life.
• Puts cards from your library, graveyard, or exile zones into your hand or onto the battlefield. This includes drawing cards.
• Causes opponents to put objects from their hand or the battlefield into the library, graveyard or exile.
• Puts a permanent into play under your control or gives you control of a permanent.
• Puts +x/+x counters, or counters linked to a beneficial effect, on a permanent you control.
• Gives +x/+x or a beneficial ability to a target creature you control.
• Exiles, damages, destroys, taps, or gives -x/-x to an opponent's target permanent. If the ability could target
your own permanents, it is not optional unless that ability could target an opponent.
• Gives you additional turns or phases.
• Counters a spell or conditionally counters a spell, but only when cast by an opponent.

I am not a judge, but if I am reading this correctly, then this means that Oath of Druids is no longer a deck, since the ability from Orchard is now something the opponent can decline (``Puts a permanent into play under your control or gives you control of a permanent.'')

Of course, I could be wrong. I could be missing something, and I hope that I am. Otherwise, we've just seen a radical change in this game.

EDIT: Fixed some previous statements. But it seems that Orchard still doesn't work anymore.

Orchard's controller controls the trigger, which instructs you to put a token into play under an opponent's control....therefore it is putting a permanent into play under an opponent's control, which does not fall under:
"Puts a permanent into play under your control or gives you control of a permanent."

So Orchard still works.

[bactgudz]

The most relevant interaction I can think of in Vintage is Bridge from Below against Oath.

[Anusien]

bactudz is correct, Forbidden Orchard's ability is not optional.

[Adan]

Puts cards from your library, graveyard, or exile zones into your hand or onto the battlefield. This includes drawing cards.

Does this mean I can go trigger-happy with Time Vault-Key without the fear of dying to my own Confidants? This is retarded, right?

[Womba]

Edit: Def read it wrong...

[Bakalias]

Nop you can't.
As Dark Confidant doesn't have "may" on it's ability, you normally must take your card, no matter what.
Here, it will apply only if you forget to take the card and I suppose you opponent will not let you skip it more than once before realizing you’re trying to cheat (if done on purpose).

[mikekilljoy]

What the rule pretty much says is that an opponent is no longer liable for you forgetting to do something that you MAY do. Bob, Orchard, and the like are not may abilities.

[Delha]

I am not a judge, but if I am reading this correctly, then this means that Oath of Druids is no longer a deck, since the ability from Orchard is now something the opponent can decline (``Puts a permanent into play under your control or gives you control of a permanent.'')

I think you may be juxtaposing the nesting of categories. My interpretation of the text is that "All Optional Abilities fall into the following categories", as opposed to "All abilities that fall into the below categories are considered Optional Abilities".

Edit: Grammar

[Anusien]

I am not a judge, but if I am reading this correctly, then this means that Oath of Druids is no longer a deck, since the ability from Orchard is now something the opponent can decline (``Puts a permanent into play under your control or gives you control of a permanent.'')

I think you may be juxtaposing the nesting of categories. My interpretation of the text is that "All Optional Abilities fall into the following categories", as opposed to "All abilities that falling into the below categories are considered Optional Abilities".

No. Any triggered ability or enters the battlefield replacement effect that only does what's in the new Optional Abilities section is now optional. So at REL Competitive Pitchburn Devils is optional, even though it doesn't say "may" on the card.

Dark Confidant is not optional because it does more than just putting a card in your hand.

[Delha]

I am not a judge, but if I am reading this correctly, then this means that Oath of Druids is no longer a deck, since the ability from Orchard is now something the opponent can decline (``Puts a permanent into play under your control or gives you control of a permanent.'')

I think you may be juxtaposing the nesting of categories. My interpretation of the text is that "All Optional Abilities fall into the following categories", as opposed to "All abilities that falling into the below categories are considered Optional Abilities".

No. Any triggered ability or enters the battlefield replacement effect that only does what's in the new Optional Abilities section is now optional. So at REL Competitive Pitchburn Devils is optional, even though it doesn't say "may" on the card.

Ugh, I should have read more carefully (both the rules text and the thread). I see my mistake now, thanks for the clarification.

[AmbivalentDuck]

So, if I understand correctly...if the board is empty and a Flametongue Kavu would somehow wind up in play with an otherwise empty board...it no longer must kill itself?  But only at these RELs.

[nataz]

I'm really confused by this. The idea of writing "may" on the card seemed simple and clear. Now I have to remember a big list of "optional abilities" that have a ton of clauses on them and apply them to every card that has some sort of trigger. it seems redic complicated and equivalent to adding functional errata to tons of cards. Am I missing something?

[Norm4eva]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting but this places a lot more emphasis on the opponent to track the gamestate, since there is no longer a rule for 'backing up the game'.

So imagine the Orchard trigger did apply to this set of rules, the conversation would go like this."

Player A "Tap for manas and give you a token"
Player B "Oh shit I forgot, oh well"
Player A "Now now clown, it's mandatory, I won't let you 'forget' before I pass priority"

On the whole it just seems to get rid of the idea that you need to try and restore the gamestate if there's, like I dunno, a ton of interactions happening during combat, or maybe you eff up when you're plaing Soul Sisters and you don't trigger each Soul Warden, once the trigger has come and gone if you've forgotten there's no retroactive going back, it'll be treated as a 'may' for the purpose of keeping the gamestate where it is now.  That's how I read it anyway.

[Blue Lotus]

So, if I understand correctly...if the board is empty and a Flametongue Kavu would somehow wind up in play with an otherwise empty board...it no longer must kill itself?  But only at these RELs.

• Exiles, damages, destroys, taps, or gives -x/-x to an opponent's target permanent. If the ability could target
your own permanents, it is not optional unless that ability could target an opponent.

Seems it still has to kill itself.

[forests failed you]

It doesn't really change things very much.  Sure I can think of a million triggers that could be forgotten, and under these rules you can't go back in time and get them--however, if you just remember your triggers, you'll be fine.  Also, people seem to think that just letting their opponent's forget is going to be a free-roll and a cheater's paradise.  Unlikely, because when your opponent figures out the next turn that he forgot to gain two off his Kitchen Finks, and you are like: "Sorry dude you forgot." He is going to call the judge:  he isn't going to get the life, but you are both going to get warnings.  Multiple warnings for the same thing in a tournament upgrade to GL, ML, & DQ.  Not to mention if a judge sees you LETTING your opponent FORGET, it could also be ruled as tournament fraud, which is a cheating offense, and a DQ.  Penalties for the same infraction are tracked by the DCI over time and can warrant a suspension.  It doesn't really change much, it just puts more responsibility on the player to make sure he or she puts their triggers onto the stack, the way that they are supposed to in the first place.  The rule also states that it is for REL professional and competitive, so scum are not going to be able to use this rule to bully children at FNM or Prereleases; and for the record if you are playing at REL professional or competitive you should be held accountable for performing the simplest of tasks such as doing what your cards say and remembering to put your triggers onto the stack.  

I like the fact that things are going to be ruled upon consistently moving forward; it was unnerving and annoying that every time a judge has been called at a high level event because of a disagreement upon reality that it was basically the same thing as flipping a planechase card as to what was going to happen next in my match.  

[Daenyth]

It doesn't really change things very much.  Sure I can think of a million triggers that could be forgotten, and under these rules you can't go back in time and get them--however, if you just remember your triggers, you'll be fine.  Also, people seem to think that just letting their opponent's forget is going to be a free-roll and a cheater's paradise.  Unlikely, because when your opponent figures out the next turn that he forgot to gain two off his Kitchen Finks, and you are like: "Sorry dude you forgot." He is going to call the judge:  he isn't going to get the life, but you are both going to get warnings.

Wrong. Under the new IPG neither or you will get a Warning. If a trigger that you do not control is missed, you are not obligated to inform anyone. If a trigger you control falls under the "optional" criteria, you will not get a Warning for being missed. If an ability does nothing but gain you life, it's under "optional" and is treated as if "may" was errata'd onto it.

[KingSquee]

It doesn't really change things very much.  Sure I can think of a million triggers that could be forgotten, and under these rules you can't go back in time and get them--however, if you just remember your triggers, you'll be fine.  Also, people seem to think that just letting their opponent's forget is going to be a free-roll and a cheater's paradise.  Unlikely, because when your opponent figures out the next turn that he forgot to gain two off his Kitchen Finks, and you are like: "Sorry dude you forgot." He is going to call the judge:  he isn't going to get the life, but you are both going to get warnings.  Multiple warnings for the same thing in a tournament upgrade to GL, ML, & DQ.  Not to mention if a judge sees you LETTING your opponent FORGET, it could also be ruled as tournament fraud, which is a cheating offense, and a DQ.  Penalties for the same infraction are tracked by the DCI over time and can warrant a suspension.  It doesn't really change much, it just puts more responsibility on the player to make sure he or she puts their triggers onto the stack, the way that they are supposed to in the first place.  The rule also states that it is for REL professional and competitive, so scum are not going to be able to use this rule to bully children at FNM or Prereleases; and for the record if you are playing at REL professional or competitive you should be held accountable for performing the simplest of tasks such as doing what your cards say and remembering to put your triggers onto the stack.  

I like the fact that things are going to be ruled upon consistently moving forward; it was unnerving and annoying that every time a judge has been called at a high level event because of a disagreement upon reality that it was basically the same thing as flipping a planechase card as to what was going to happen next in my match.  

My thoughts exactly. I do think the wording the DCI chose is a bit ambiguous and perhaps a clarification is in order.

An example I immediately thought of, only because it is the most recent:

I love drafting U/x self-mill in Innistrad. As such I usually end up with a Selhoff Occultist or three in my deck. Despite drafting the deck all the time, I'm still a champ at missing the "required" trigger to mill a card whenever a creature dies. Under the new rules, the game just goes on; we don't back up to before the creature died nor do we just immediately mill a card from somewhere. It doesn't mean I am allowed to ignore the mill trigger at all.

I had a discussion with Mr. Hornung over Facebook re: Jin-Gitaxias. He contended he is allowed under the new rule to "forget" the draw 7 trigger whenever convenient to avoid decking himself. After some teasing about a missed Narcomoeba trigger or 3 at Vintage champs , I contended you can't, and if you try, your opponent will (or should) remind you to draw 7, at which point you must.

[Meddling Mike]

It doesn't really change things very much.  Sure I can think of a million triggers that could be forgotten, and under these rules you can't go back in time and get them--however, if you just remember your triggers, you'll be fine.  Also, people seem to think that just letting their opponent's forget is going to be a free-roll and a cheater's paradise.  Unlikely, because when your opponent figures out the next turn that he forgot to gain two off his Kitchen Finks, and you are like: "Sorry dude you forgot." He is going to call the judge:  he isn't going to get the life, but you are both going to get warnings.

Wrong. Under the new IPG neither or you will get a Warning. If a trigger that you do not control is missed, you are not obligated to inform anyone. If a trigger you control falls under the "optional" criteria, you will not get a Warning for being missed. If an ability does nothing but gain you life, it's under "optional" and is treated as if "may" was errata'd onto it.

This is my current understanding of this change is that you would no longer get a warning for not reminding an opponent of non-may triggered abilities. I really hope the DCI/somebody can give better clarification on what this will change exactly.

[Daenyth]

It doesn't really change things very much.  Sure I can think of a million triggers that could be forgotten, and under these rules you can't go back in time and get them--however, if you just remember your triggers, you'll be fine.  Also, people seem to think that just letting their opponent's forget is going to be a free-roll and a cheater's paradise.  Unlikely, because when your opponent figures out the next turn that he forgot to gain two off his Kitchen Finks, and you are like: "Sorry dude you forgot." He is going to call the judge:  he isn't going to get the life, but you are both going to get warnings.

Wrong. Under the new IPG neither or you will get a Warning. If a trigger that you do not control is missed, you are not obligated to inform anyone. If a trigger you control falls under the "optional" criteria, you will not get a Warning for being missed. If an ability does nothing but gain you life, it's under "optional" and is treated as if "may" was errata'd onto it.

This is my current understanding of this change is that you would no longer get a warning for not reminding an opponent of non-may triggered abilities. I really hope the DCI/somebody can give better clarification on what this will change exactly.

You no longer get a warning for failing to remind your opponent of mandatory triggers either.

[Diakonov]

Here's the deal, y'all:

As a frequent drafter, I witnessed how Innistrad introduced a number of complications involving triggered abilities.  There are far more mandatory triggers in this set than there have been in the past, which a lot of competitive players were upset about.  Players didn't like being "forced" to remind their opponents to stack triggers which would benefit them.  (In previous sets, many of these self-beneficial triggers would have been printed as "may.")  The inevitable result is a higher number of judge calls, which means a lot more warnings and busy, busy judges.  A lot of players have been lobbying for a change like this for a while.

Essentially, the ruling is designed to take mandatory triggers which only benefit yourself and convert them into optional triggers.  It is a bit unsettling, though, since "benefit" can be fairly subjective at times (ex: Oath & Bridge).

[honestabe]

I wonder how these changes play out on mtgo

[Diakonov]

I wonder how these changes play out on mtgo

The next patch will probably reflect all of these changes.  Unruly Mob and such will now be treated as "may" abilities.

[Smmenen]

It is concerning that Wizards now has a clear trend of issuing short, ambiguous statements regarding significant rules and policies in the last week.  The range of opinion on this rules matter demonstrates, at a minimum, a problem with the scope and applicability of this new rules pronouncement.  While I will be looking for further clarification, I think it points to the need for greater care and better execution when it comes to issuing things such as this. 

[Delha]

Essentially, the ruling is designed to take mandatory triggers which only benefit yourself and convert them into optional triggers.

After being corrected earlier in the thread and rereading the rules (as well as this article on ChannelFireball), this was my take on it as well. Anything that would traditionally considered to be purely beneficial is now entirely optional. Cards literally work in different ways at that REL.

With that in mind, skipping the Jin Gitaxias draw is a legit play. You don't "forget" to not draw, you just choose to not do so. Similarly, you could choose to not have your opponent discard, though that obviously going to happen often.

[Adan]

Alright, I'm wrong about Confidant, but what's with Transcendence?
If gaining life from a trigger becomes optional, this card becomes better , doesn't it? Oo

[Tha Gunslinga]

It's still a 3WWW Enchantment and it's useless in Vintage because the primary win condition involves poison counters.

[JACO]

It is concerning that Wizards now has a clear trend of issuing short, ambiguous statements regarding significant rules and policies in the last week.  The range of opinion on this rules matter demonstrates, at a minimum, a problem with the scope and applicability of this new rules pronouncement.  While I will be looking for further clarification, I think it points to the need for greater care and better execution when it comes to issuing things such as this. 

Bingo. WotC has sucked as distributing information properly and clearly, for a long time.

[Smmenen]

They've definitely improved in a number of areas.

They now publicly announce all errata, following the original Time Vault debacle, and they actually explain the changes to the B&R list.  They should just follow that policy in other areas. 

[LotusHead]

I am not happy with these rules changes. Mostly because I don't really understand them.  But is there to be an Oracle wording at one REL and another Oracle wording at other REL's?