If a player asks about Ravenbloom Student's might and the controller answers with only the base might (forgetting the +1 from their triggered ability), then remembers before combat resolves, is this a missed trigger or a communication violation?

Ruling: This is a communication violation, not a missed trigger. The trigger doesn't have an observable impact until damage, so it hasn't been missed yet. The issue is the ambiguous/incomplete communication when answering the opponent's question.

Sequence:

• Player B should be given a warning for the communication violation
• The game state should be rewound to before combat
• If the judge suspects the communication error was intentional, an investigation should be conducted after applying the penalty

Nuances:

• If the question was specifically "what is the base might" (rather than "what is the might"), answering "2" alone is still ambiguous communication - better responses would be "the base might is 2" or showing the card
• In the context of current cards, asking specifically about "base might" would be unusual, making a simple "2" answer more suspicious
• Whether this was intentional cheating requires investigation after the penalty is applied, but judges cannot use prior player history to determine if the infraction occurred in the first place
• Judges should note vague communication for future reference when a penalty is applied