This might be my favorite one yet. It’s simple but a lot of people would focus on the missed trigger but not the stack and the game state. Please keep doing these. They’re simple and very informative
The upgrade to warning (detrimental trigger) doesn’t consider the board state - it looks at whether the trigger is “usually considered detrimental” - but you make a very good point! I think if a situation like that arises, we need to look into whether the player is intentionally missing the trigger (I.e. trying to cheat)
Happens fairly often in (competitive) Commander games, as Thassas oracle with an empty library is a very common play and having an Esper Sentinel is also common. Having a card extra is basically always beneficial, the edge cases where its not would consider the board state, which is more relevant to determine if its outright cheating if they do it intentional.
that one was nicely complicated. summarising to make sure i have this right - opponent casts first spell, sentinel triggers, spell is countered, then trigger still occurs. casting was not negated, just the spell's effect. i've been playing since born of the gods but still have trouble with the stack and layers. even at draft last night, my opponent explained that it was possible for me to block a creature and still fight another one even though either would still kill my creature.
"my opponent explained that it was possible for me to block a creature and still fight another one even though either would still kill my creature." what do you mean by fight another one? if the creature aint dead its still a legal target for spells and actions
Once a creature becomes blocked, it remains blocked, even if the blocking creature dies before combat damage is dealt So you can declare it as a blocker to creature A, preventing its damage from getting through, then during the blockers step (after declaring, but before combat damage), you can have it fight creature B Let’s say both your creature and creature B die. Well, creature A remains blocked and does no damage to you (assuming no Trample), and creature B is dead, so you stopped 2 different attackers this way
Does the decision to pay 2 mana for the spell pierce matter in this case? If the player on the left is not aware that the esper sentinel triggers are on the stack while the spell pierce is resolving, that is essentially information that was not provided to them at the point a relevant decision was being made.
When it comes to “Missed” triggers, the rules say that the controlling player does not have to acknowledge the trigger until it would visibly affect the game state (such as drawing cards, in this case) It doesn’t matter how that affects the other player. Basically, if the opponent is paying close attention, then they should just assume that the player put the triggers on the stack as soon as they cast their first spell If not, then even better, of course. But there’s no scenario where it hurts them opponent. Just make all of your decisions assuming no triggers will be missed, and everything will be fine
This is a weird one because it allows for perfectly legal angle shooting. If we change the situation slightly and the opponent has two open mana, maybe I don't actually care if the stirring resolves, but I really want the card draw. So I fire off the spell pierce, don't mention the triggers, and then once they pay the mana for spell pierce I point to my Esper Sentinels and draw two cards. Even if the opponent noticed my Esper Sentinels on the board, they might assume it's a "missed trigger" and get swindled. Even this judge initially assumed that, and most players have less knowledge than a judge. I know players are allowed to use their knowledge of the rules to their advantage, but that feels icky.
That's why the wording at 5:33 is important. If my opp cares about my trigger it's up to them to be aware of them, as I have not actually missed anything yet if I was the player on the right side in this example.
I understand where you're coming from, but consider this: triggered abilities are the *only* thing in this game only one player has a responsibility for maintaining. That is, the default is our opponents have to know what our cards do, and how that affects the game, but we make an exception with triggered abilities. They're the only mandatory game action that can be missed. So to me, it's perfectly fine, because really we're just being more restrictive with our exception we carved out for triggered abilities. Must I remind my opponent about my Notion Thief if they cast Windfall? No, because they should *know* that they won't be able to draw those cards. Similarly, they should *know* that my Esper Sentinel should trigger. Also, I don't think someone who notices a missed trigger but chooses not to say anything has any ground to stand on about being angle-shot.
Here’s the solution: Never assume your opponent has missed their triggers There’s no potential for angle shooting if you just pay attention and assume all triggers went on the stack correctly. Either you’re right and they go for the card draw like you assumed, or they make a mistake and completely miss their trigger, which is even better for you
Can someone explain what the difference between this one and the "Forgetting to untap Nettle Sentinel" video, which was discussed to be a missed trigger and opponent decides if it goes on the stack? What's the difference between CoCo resolving in that one, and Spell Pierce resolving here?
In the Nettle Sentinel case; the Nettle Sentinel trigger goes onto the stack after CoCo, and therefore is supposed to resolve first. CoCo was resolved first; and therefore the Sentinel trigger was missed. In this case; the last thing on the stack was the Esper sentinel trigger, as the stirrings was countered. No other game actions had been taken, so it was still ok to resolve the trigger. If the stirrings had not been countered; and had resolved, then the trigger would be considered missed.
With a card like spell pierce couldn't you gain an advantage by 'forgetting' your esper sentinel trigger, as if your opponent has forgotten it that may play into whether or not they choose to pay for the spell pierce? Say, they don't have the mana to pay for both?
This would be a different situation. As it stands they don't have mana to pay for spell pierce at all. If they did then the board state is different and "missing" the trigger could be ruled differently, if the opponent has already paid for it. As it stands, there is no difference in board state before and after stirrings has been countered (for the stirrings player).
The player on the right is not required to acknowledge the triggers until they would actually draw cards (visible change in game state) The fact that they didn’t mention it when their opponent cast their first spell doesn’t mean it was “missed”, and it doesn’t give them any special advantage either To wit: All you have to do is assume that your opponent did not forget about their triggers. If you assume they will be attempting to draw cards after the Spell Pierce resolves, then there’s no down side for you Either they remember, and everything proceeds the way you expected, or they forget to draw, which is literally just better for you. (Except in rare cases where drawing might actually be bad for them, in which case you would immediately remind them and force them to draw - For instance, if they were about to deck themselves and lose)
I don't understand why this turns out the way it did when in the example with nettle sentinel it went the other way. This feels like a missed trigger / out of order sequencing because you resolved the spell Pierce without announcing the trigger, the same way untapping the nettle sentinel after resolving the coco. Both rulings seem reasonable just feel like they should go one way or the other because the game scenario feels the same?
The Nettle Sentinel's ability was supposed to go on the stack *BEFORE* the Coco, and he started resolving the coco before doing the Untap. Clearly indicating that the trigger has been missed. In this case, the Spell Piece is supposed to go on the stack *AFTER* the trigger. So resolving the spell pierce before resolving the Esper Sentinel ability is the correct sequence of game actions. It doesn't really matter if you temporarily forget a trigger as long as you remember it before it becomes Missed. That is, you remember before any game action is taken that results in a game state where it is impossible for the trigger to still be on the stack.
So if the first spell (Ancient Stirring) had already resolved by the time they noticed the missed trigger, it wouldn't be legal to add the Esper Sentinel trigger on the stack, right?
I think this really has to do with the Spell Pierce countering the Ancient Stirrings. So the way the stack looks (technically) is Spell Pierce ----- Esper Sentinel Trigger ----- Ancient Stirrings With Ancient Stirrings at the bottom. When the Spell Pierce Resolves, the Ancient Stirrings is removed from the stack completely and put into the graveyard. So now the stack looks like this Esper Sentinel Trigger When the opponent asks to play a second spell, there has not been any game actions taken by either player that would impact this stack. Basically, as long as we haven't change phases, and as long as another sorcery-speed spell hasn't been cast, everything could theoretically be casted in response to the Esper Sentinel trigger. As a result, once the controlling player recognizes it's existence, we can say that we resolve it before another sorcery-speed spell is cast. If instead the Spell Pierce was something like an Unsummon and had no impact on the Ancient Stirrings, and the Ancient Stirrings resolved and then when the opponent went to cast a second spell, the controlling player remembered the trigger, we can't have the Esper Sentinel trigger resolve. The trigger was missed, and since it is a beneficial trigger, no warnings or violations will be issued. Instead the opponent will get to decide if it goes on the stack or not. Maybe a gentle reminder to controlling player to remember their triggers, but other than that nothing else should happen.
@@jakehr3 Right, I didn't take into account the detail of Spell Pierce countering Ancient Stirrings and removing it from the stack. In the case of the example you mentioned (Unsummon instead of Spell Pierce), once the Unsummon resolves the stack is Esper Sentinel Trigger / Ancient Stirring So once Ancient Stirring resolves, it should be too later to remember the trigger, even if no other spell or action has been taken, right? I mean, I am not sure how to say it, but if Ancient Stirrings resolves, then the stack is at a state where the Esper Sentinel trigger should already been resolved, and that makes me think that it should be too late to remember it. But, like you said in your comment, this wasn't the case: the spell was countered and the Esper Sentinel trigger was the only object in the stack, so it makes sense that, because no other action was taken, then the player can remember the trigger and avoid missing it.
@@goinza6538 from what I saw of them in earlier videos of the series, in the case of missed beneficial triggers, the remedy is to give the opponent the option to place the trigger on the stack. So in the case where Ancient Stirrings resolved it would be up to the opponent to decide if the trigger would happen. If Ancient Stirrings doesn't resolve due to being countered, then the trigger isn't considered missed until another sorcery has been cast.
so wait, according to IPG2.1 Upgrade, esper sentinels Trigger would still not be seen as detrimental, even if your library had no cards, and you intentionally missed the trigger? (since it states that the current game state is not a factor in determining if the triggered ability is detrimental or beneficial)
In case that you did not do it on purpose (There should be an investigation at that point), it is no warning, just a missed trigger. However, if your opponent misses a trigger, you always get the choice to put the trigger on the stack. So a player forgets about esper sentinel with no cards in library, the opponent probably will choose to put the trigger onto the stack and the Esper sentinel player will lose the game eventually. In the specific case, given that the player intentionally missed the trigger, the appropriate infraction is called "cheating" and should be handled with a dq though.
If you take the board state into account it gets quickly murky if something is in some way arguably beneficial or not, could be, depends on the deck, depends on so many things. So there are a bunch of quirky definitions to determin what is beneficial and what isnt, but for the majority of times they should be true, and a judge at least somewhat capable to identify situations in which it can be cheating (but even then, in most cases its not cheating, so you should look for proper evidence to support that, like a history of the player doing it and such, which can be a potentially extensive investigation that might or might not be worth the time).
@@ThisNameIsBanned with your and Binolinos explanations i see now why the IPG is worded that way. since you cant prove without an extensive investigation if it was intentionally missed or not, the ipg ruling for a missed trigger won't take board state into account.
Its not important to be right , you have to understand WHY the answer is was it is. Otherwise you are just gambling for what you think is intuitive, but you should understand the rules instead (at least as a judge, players usually just remember specific interactions).
Hi, a little late to the party I know, but this just came up at a game. I've read somewhere that if esper Sentinels trigger is missed, both players could in fact get a warning, since both missed it. Is that true? Of course it might depend on the scenario whether they actually get a warning or not. Thanks! :)
From what I heard here you only get a warning if its detrimental to your game. So if you have no cards left in your deck and "forget" that saves you from losing for a moment. or if your OPP had something that pinged you when they draw and you were at 1 and you "forgot" they could issue a warning... I do not see how espar sentinal could ever be detrimental to both players at the same time so I'd say only the person with that issue should get the warning.
@@gnarleytarley3870 Esper Sentinel's trigger is never considered detrimental. Because the rule does not care about the game state, it evaluates every trigger in a vacuum. Drawing a cards is beneficial even though there are situations where you might not want to draw a card. No different from a trigger that has you win the game when your mum said you had to come home after that game but you really don't want to go home yet. Now if you intentionally miss it without forgetting it and this causes an advantage, you could get investigated for cheating, which is independent of the missed trigger and also doesn't give any warnings, it gets you disqualified.
I still strongly believe it should not be possible to miss triggers, period. By the game rules as intended, those triggers happen. It makes legit no sense that they suddenly don't because a player wasn't paying attention. I feel like the concept of "missed triggers" is just a sort of "gotcha" thing left over from less inclusive geek culture back in the day and just shouldn't be a thing anymore.
It has nothing to do with inclusivity. In fact, it used to be explicitly required for both players to remember all triggers in order to maintain a proper gamestate, so your “left over gotcha” assumption is contrary to history Not only was this far slower, but also resulted in huge feels bad moments where a more skilled player could lose due to being forced to play half the other player’s deck for them, rather than their opponent being required to understand their own deck However, keep in mind that these rulings only apply to Competitive Rules Enforcement Level (REL) and above. This has nothing to do with new players joining an FNM at your local game store At FNM (and the like), you will be using Regular REL, which is far more friendly and inclusive on purpose. In my experience at FNM, my opponents and I will often remind each other about triggers, or even perform some actions out of order (even when a trigger technically should have been considered “missed”), so long as it would lead to the same game state anyway
This might be my favorite one yet. It’s simple but a lot of people would focus on the missed trigger but not the stack and the game state.
Please keep doing these. They’re simple and very informative
Dave you're such a good teacher in these. Thanks for putting these online.
Dave the "I forgot" while not damaging the board state lesson was beautiful.
Perfectly cut at that last judge call
This was a really good situation to show how a trigger isn't missed just because you forgot for a little, as long as it's not too late.
I was so confused when the player started to "play judge" but made a lot more sense when i read his shirt XD
What if the Esper Sentinel's controller had an empty library? (The draw is not optional if the opponent does not pay.)
The upgrade to warning (detrimental trigger) doesn’t consider the board state - it looks at whether the trigger is “usually considered detrimental” - but you make a very good point!
I think if a situation like that arises, we need to look into whether the player is intentionally missing the trigger (I.e. trying to cheat)
I would imagine this what-if scenario would require investigation about whether or not it was missed intentionally.
Had this exact same thought when they started talking about detrimental vs beneficial.
Lol but the smart opponent would simply mention their opponents esper sentinel trigger and inform them they're not paying its X cost. gg
Happens fairly often in (competitive) Commander games, as Thassas oracle with an empty library is a very common play and having an Esper Sentinel is also common.
Having a card extra is basically always beneficial, the edge cases where its not would consider the board state, which is more relevant to determine if its outright cheating if they do it intentional.
that one was nicely complicated. summarising to make sure i have this right - opponent casts first spell, sentinel triggers, spell is countered, then trigger still occurs. casting was not negated, just the spell's effect.
i've been playing since born of the gods but still have trouble with the stack and layers. even at draft last night, my opponent explained that it was possible for me to block a creature and still fight another one even though either would still kill my creature.
"my opponent explained that it was possible for me to block a creature and still fight another one even though either would still kill my creature."
what do you mean by fight another one? if the creature aint dead its still a legal target for spells and actions
@@moocow17 you do it after blockers, before damage
Once a creature becomes blocked, it remains blocked, even if the blocking creature dies before combat damage is dealt
So you can declare it as a blocker to creature A, preventing its damage from getting through, then during the blockers step (after declaring, but before combat damage), you can have it fight creature B
Let’s say both your creature and creature B die. Well, creature A remains blocked and does no damage to you (assuming no Trample), and creature B is dead, so you stopped 2 different attackers this way
Does the decision to pay 2 mana for the spell pierce matter in this case? If the player on the left is not aware that the esper sentinel triggers are on the stack while the spell pierce is resolving, that is essentially information that was not provided to them at the point a relevant decision was being made.
When it comes to “Missed” triggers, the rules say that the controlling player does not have to acknowledge the trigger until it would visibly affect the game state (such as drawing cards, in this case)
It doesn’t matter how that affects the other player. Basically, if the opponent is paying close attention, then they should just assume that the player put the triggers on the stack as soon as they cast their first spell
If not, then even better, of course. But there’s no scenario where it hurts them opponent. Just make all of your decisions assuming no triggers will be missed, and everything will be fine
This is a weird one because it allows for perfectly legal angle shooting. If we change the situation slightly and the opponent has two open mana, maybe I don't actually care if the stirring resolves, but I really want the card draw. So I fire off the spell pierce, don't mention the triggers, and then once they pay the mana for spell pierce I point to my Esper Sentinels and draw two cards. Even if the opponent noticed my Esper Sentinels on the board, they might assume it's a "missed trigger" and get swindled. Even this judge initially assumed that, and most players have less knowledge than a judge.
I know players are allowed to use their knowledge of the rules to their advantage, but that feels icky.
That's why the wording at 5:33 is important. If my opp cares about my trigger it's up to them to be aware of them, as I have not actually missed anything yet if I was the player on the right side in this example.
I understand where you're coming from, but consider this: triggered abilities are the *only* thing in this game only one player has a responsibility for maintaining. That is, the default is our opponents have to know what our cards do, and how that affects the game, but we make an exception with triggered abilities. They're the only mandatory game action that can be missed. So to me, it's perfectly fine, because really we're just being more restrictive with our exception we carved out for triggered abilities. Must I remind my opponent about my Notion Thief if they cast Windfall? No, because they should *know* that they won't be able to draw those cards. Similarly, they should *know* that my Esper Sentinel should trigger.
Also, I don't think someone who notices a missed trigger but chooses not to say anything has any ground to stand on about being angle-shot.
Here’s the solution: Never assume your opponent has missed their triggers
There’s no potential for angle shooting if you just pay attention and assume all triggers went on the stack correctly. Either you’re right and they go for the card draw like you assumed, or they make a mistake and completely miss their trigger, which is even better for you
Can someone explain what the difference between this one and the "Forgetting to untap Nettle Sentinel" video, which was discussed to be a missed trigger and opponent decides if it goes on the stack?
What's the difference between CoCo resolving in that one, and Spell Pierce resolving here?
In the Nettle Sentinel case; the Nettle Sentinel trigger goes onto the stack after CoCo, and therefore is supposed to resolve first. CoCo was resolved first; and therefore the Sentinel trigger was missed.
In this case; the last thing on the stack was the Esper sentinel trigger, as the stirrings was countered. No other game actions had been taken, so it was still ok to resolve the trigger. If the stirrings had not been countered; and had resolved, then the trigger would be considered missed.
@@maghnushartigan2262 Thanks for the reply, that makes sense!
With a card like spell pierce couldn't you gain an advantage by 'forgetting' your esper sentinel trigger, as if your opponent has forgotten it that may play into whether or not they choose to pay for the spell pierce? Say, they don't have the mana to pay for both?
This would be a different situation. As it stands they don't have mana to pay for spell pierce at all. If they did then the board state is different and "missing" the trigger could be ruled differently, if the opponent has already paid for it. As it stands, there is no difference in board state before and after stirrings has been countered (for the stirrings player).
The player on the right is not required to acknowledge the triggers until they would actually draw cards (visible change in game state)
The fact that they didn’t mention it when their opponent cast their first spell doesn’t mean it was “missed”, and it doesn’t give them any special advantage either
To wit: All you have to do is assume that your opponent did not forget about their triggers. If you assume they will be attempting to draw cards after the Spell Pierce resolves, then there’s no down side for you
Either they remember, and everything proceeds the way you expected, or they forget to draw, which is literally just better for you. (Except in rare cases where drawing might actually be bad for them, in which case you would immediately remind them and force them to draw - For instance, if they were about to deck themselves and lose)
uhh..basically he didnt miss the trigger right? and he would still get the triggers? ( finished video i was right)
I don't understand why this turns out the way it did when in the example with nettle sentinel it went the other way. This feels like a missed trigger / out of order sequencing because you resolved the spell Pierce without announcing the trigger, the same way untapping the nettle sentinel after resolving the coco. Both rulings seem reasonable just feel like they should go one way or the other because the game scenario feels the same?
The Nettle Sentinel's ability was supposed to go on the stack *BEFORE* the Coco, and he started resolving the coco before doing the Untap. Clearly indicating that the trigger has been missed.
In this case, the Spell Piece is supposed to go on the stack *AFTER* the trigger. So resolving the spell pierce before resolving the Esper Sentinel ability is the correct sequence of game actions.
It doesn't really matter if you temporarily forget a trigger as long as you remember it before it becomes Missed. That is, you remember before any game action is taken that results in a game state where it is impossible for the trigger to still be on the stack.
So if the first spell (Ancient Stirring) had already resolved by the time they noticed the missed trigger, it wouldn't be legal to add the Esper Sentinel trigger on the stack, right?
I think this really has to do with the Spell Pierce countering the Ancient Stirrings. So the way the stack looks (technically) is
Spell Pierce
-----
Esper Sentinel Trigger
-----
Ancient Stirrings
With Ancient Stirrings at the bottom. When the Spell Pierce Resolves, the Ancient Stirrings is removed from the stack completely and put into the graveyard. So now the stack looks like this
Esper Sentinel Trigger
When the opponent asks to play a second spell, there has not been any game actions taken by either player that would impact this stack. Basically, as long as we haven't change phases, and as long as another sorcery-speed spell hasn't been cast, everything could theoretically be casted in response to the Esper Sentinel trigger. As a result, once the controlling player recognizes it's existence, we can say that we resolve it before another sorcery-speed spell is cast.
If instead the Spell Pierce was something like an Unsummon and had no impact on the Ancient Stirrings, and the Ancient Stirrings resolved and then when the opponent went to cast a second spell, the controlling player remembered the trigger, we can't have the Esper Sentinel trigger resolve. The trigger was missed, and since it is a beneficial trigger, no warnings or violations will be issued. Instead the opponent will get to decide if it goes on the stack or not. Maybe a gentle reminder to controlling player to remember their triggers, but other than that nothing else should happen.
@@jakehr3 Right, I didn't take into account the detail of Spell Pierce countering Ancient Stirrings and removing it from the stack.
In the case of the example you mentioned (Unsummon instead of Spell Pierce), once the Unsummon resolves the stack is
Esper Sentinel Trigger / Ancient Stirring
So once Ancient Stirring resolves, it should be too later to remember the trigger, even if no other spell or action has been taken, right? I mean, I am not sure how to say it, but if Ancient Stirrings resolves, then the stack is at a state where the Esper Sentinel trigger should already been resolved, and that makes me think that it should be too late to remember it.
But, like you said in your comment, this wasn't the case: the spell was countered and the Esper Sentinel trigger was the only object in the stack, so it makes sense that, because no other action was taken, then the player can remember the trigger and avoid missing it.
@@goinza6538 from what I saw of them in earlier videos of the series, in the case of missed beneficial triggers, the remedy is to give the opponent the option to place the trigger on the stack. So in the case where Ancient Stirrings resolved it would be up to the opponent to decide if the trigger would happen. If Ancient Stirrings doesn't resolve due to being countered, then the trigger isn't considered missed until another sorcery has been cast.
Lost a top 8 berth in a RCQ because someone made this ruling incorrectly
so wait, according to IPG2.1 Upgrade, esper sentinels Trigger would still not be seen as detrimental, even if your library had no cards, and you intentionally missed the trigger?
(since it states that the current game state is not a factor in determining if the triggered ability is detrimental or beneficial)
In case that you did not do it on purpose (There should be an investigation at that point), it is no warning, just a missed trigger. However, if your opponent misses a trigger, you always get the choice to put the trigger on the stack. So a player forgets about esper sentinel with no cards in library, the opponent probably will choose to put the trigger onto the stack and the Esper sentinel player will lose the game eventually.
In the specific case, given that the player intentionally missed the trigger, the appropriate infraction is called "cheating" and should be handled with a dq though.
If you take the board state into account it gets quickly murky if something is in some way arguably beneficial or not, could be, depends on the deck, depends on so many things.
So there are a bunch of quirky definitions to determin what is beneficial and what isnt, but for the majority of times they should be true, and a judge at least somewhat capable to identify situations in which it can be cheating (but even then, in most cases its not cheating, so you should look for proper evidence to support that, like a history of the player doing it and such, which can be a potentially extensive investigation that might or might not be worth the time).
@@ThisNameIsBanned with your and Binolinos explanations i see now why the IPG is worded that way. since you cant prove without an extensive investigation if it was intentionally missed or not, the ipg ruling for a missed trigger won't take board state into account.
I would say he would get a warning if he had a low number of cards in his library. and could even be cheating if he was doing it multiple times.
Bruh I'm rocking the answers to these problems.
So far...
Its not important to be right , you have to understand WHY the answer is was it is.
Otherwise you are just gambling for what you think is intuitive, but you should understand the rules instead (at least as a judge, players usually just remember specific interactions).
Hi, a little late to the party I know, but this just came up at a game. I've read somewhere that if esper Sentinels trigger is missed, both players could in fact get a warning, since both missed it. Is that true? Of course it might depend on the scenario whether they actually get a warning or not. Thanks! :)
From what I heard here you only get a warning if its detrimental to your game. So if you have no cards left in your deck and "forget" that saves you from losing for a moment. or if your OPP had something that pinged you when they draw and you were at 1 and you "forgot" they could issue a warning... I do not see how espar sentinal could ever be detrimental to both players at the same time so I'd say only the person with that issue should get the warning.
@@gnarleytarley3870 Esper Sentinel's trigger is never considered detrimental. Because the rule does not care about the game state, it evaluates every trigger in a vacuum. Drawing a cards is beneficial even though there are situations where you might not want to draw a card.
No different from a trigger that has you win the game when your mum said you had to come home after that game but you really don't want to go home yet.
Now if you intentionally miss it without forgetting it and this causes an advantage, you could get investigated for cheating, which is independent of the missed trigger and also doesn't give any warnings, it gets you disqualified.
This man trying to make MTG as confusing as possible lol
I still strongly believe it should not be possible to miss triggers, period. By the game rules as intended, those triggers happen. It makes legit no sense that they suddenly don't because a player wasn't paying attention. I feel like the concept of "missed triggers" is just a sort of "gotcha" thing left over from less inclusive geek culture back in the day and just shouldn't be a thing anymore.
It has nothing to do with inclusivity. In fact, it used to be explicitly required for both players to remember all triggers in order to maintain a proper gamestate, so your “left over gotcha” assumption is contrary to history
Not only was this far slower, but also resulted in huge feels bad moments where a more skilled player could lose due to being forced to play half the other player’s deck for them, rather than their opponent being required to understand their own deck
However, keep in mind that these rulings only apply to Competitive Rules Enforcement Level (REL) and above. This has nothing to do with new players joining an FNM at your local game store
At FNM (and the like), you will be using Regular REL, which is far more friendly and inclusive on purpose. In my experience at FNM, my opponents and I will often remind each other about triggers, or even perform some actions out of order (even when a trigger technically should have been considered “missed”), so long as it would lead to the same game state anyway