(3*) What are you allowed to bluff about? What questions must you answer fully? Support Judging FtW on Patreon at / judgingftw Suggest a question: forms.gle/YTK2qrQqTL18rRsJ9
I distinctly remember a guy in my LGS being annoying about tarmogoyf's P/T. I got him to change his tune by, every time he refused to answer, I'd ask him if there was a creature in his graveyard. Then an artifact. Then sorcery, and so on. After two times he stopped.
I think Pleasant Kenobi had a similar story about asking "Is it an X/Y" over and over again until the opponent stopped being obtuse. Very amusing way to deal with people being unnecessarily uncommunicative
I'll never answer that question because being wrong could be found as misrepresenting game state I'll always offer to count with you or let you count if you'd rather. At least at any event above fnm level
Well, this guy was actually breaking the rules, as Dave said, since at an LGS derived information is considered free, so he was obligated to reply correctly
20:12 Suggested fix: "If the contents of a hidden zone are temporarily visible to a player during the resolution of a spell or ability as a result of that spell or ability, information about the contents are derived information for that player until that spell or ability has finished resolving. In a game with more than two players, answers can be provided in a form inaccessible to players for whom the information is still private, such as in writing." Results: Questions don't have to be answered, but answers do have to be at least technically true during that window. (So you could answer "at least three" after the third Jace is found, or simply force the other player to look through your entire deck by refusing to answer.) A rule similar to the private-judge-conversation rule is added to account for multiplayer events. The player with temporary access is responsible for remembering or recording anything they want to know after they lose access. Of course, how this would work with intentional slow play rules-forcing a player to take the long way repeatedly when you could just answer truthfully might be stalling under some circumstances-is a reasonable concern, but it's also a concern under the current rules.
came to the comments to write something similar, with derived information already being a defined category that cleanly fits what players expect a pile of cards they are looking at to be it feels reasonable to treat it that way.
This seems reasonable, and is my intuition. The big reason I feel this would be good to change: alternate arts. Cards have more and more indecipherable alt art variants. With opponents able to outright lie, it will require a judge to be sure to find them. Do we want to involve a judge every time? I argue that's where we're heading.
Howling Mine specifically as the example of not having to explain errata is interesting because that's a situation where a player unfamiliar with their opponent's Howling Mine could easily commit an infraction by assuming it also allows them to draw an extra card (as is written on the older version) even if it's tapped. I'm sure at more relaxed RELs this would be completely understandable, and one could argue that you should know that specific clause was added to older artifacts at comp REL, but it's still a very strange intersection of two philosophies that make sense on their own coming together in a dangerous way
My favorite thing about the communication and information rules is just asking my friends at EDH what cards they Demonic/Vampiric Tutored for. At this point it’s just a joke among the playgroup, but sometimes my friends forget and just outright tell me, and sometimes they just lie. Obviously I would not do this against a random set of players that I have not played against before, because I can’t expect everyone to know that they don’t have to answer truthfully.
Strategically speaking, if I can show the card I tutored for, I sometimes do. I like presenting that I don't have a trick up my sleeve if I only tutored up an Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth with a Demonic Tutor (because my playgroup likes to shore up defenses when I tutor and are primed to use their removal on me instead of somebody else). However, if it's a Vampiric Tutor, I don't think I'm allowed to show the card since it stays in a hidden zone the entire time, but I can definitely say what it is and even reveal it as I draw it for the same effect.
@@Quroe_Nah anything in your hand is in a hidden zone the entire time too, if was against the rules to reveal your library while searching then there would have to be a penalty for accidentally revealing a card from that hidden zone, but we know that is not the case for your hand so it can't be the case for a library search either.
@@Quroe_ If you have access to information, you are allowed to share that information. If you are scrying the top two cards of your deck, you can do so face-up if you so choose. The same even applies if you are allowed access to another player's hand or library!
@@seanheath4492 "A player may not misrepresent information which is freely available to other players." "Glacial Ray deals 2 damage to any target." "Draw a card." "Tap or untap target permanent." Wanna go over the rules again?
Particularly in commander, dice tend to become an issue due to the sheer number of counter and trigger/activated abilities. My TO has implemented a rule asking players to use mancala marbles of various colors to represent denominations of 1,5, and 10 for counters. For life totals, Pin and Paper is king, but we allow any unit that cannot be modified by accident by shaking or knocking over dice including the Commander click downs.
Good video. Not sure if this video was "in response" to it, but there is a very bad video just from 2 weeks ago the YT algorithm threw at me on the same topic that unfortunately has 218K views. It covers a lot of the same ground, but despite just explaining that you can't lie about derived information, the presenter then turns around and acts like lying about derived information is just bluffing and totally legal and deal with it. Very frustrating. (Attack on Cardboard was the producer for those darkly curious, although I don't want it get even more views.)
Love you Dave!! Thanks for being such a friendly and knowledgeable voice in this community! Your vids are probably my favorite to watch of any mtg youtubers', I learn new stuff all the time from these and your thoughtful, well spoken explanations and humor are always just really entertaining and comfy to watch, even if I already know the rule. You rock man!
this is my favorite magic youtube channel, and you are my favorite judge dave. thank you for sharing you’re experience and making you’re advice free to the public
How does derived information work for visually impaired players, since so much of it is visual? An assistant, similar to shuffling for players with dexterity issues?
Honestly I'd love to see a whole video on what sort of accommodations are must be made available, may be made available, and are forbidden, just in general.
That's a good question, the MTR are clear that no strategic advice be given, including the resulting derived information. If a player needs the cards to be read to them, that's the the extent of what's allowed, though the player can also take notes and (assumedly) have them be read during the same game. Notes that weren't taken during that match are not allowed to be accessed, except for between games. No notes can be taken while drafting. Keeping the board state in their head, doing math, according to the rules, part of the player skill that's tested in a game. So, it would be a real challenge to play according to tournament rules while visually impaired. I'd argue that dictating notes and having them read back to you is fine, though at competitive REL, "electronic devices" capable of such aren't permitted, so that's a tough ask.
in a perfect world, id have a special judge certification for being an "accessibility assistant" where they're trained on exactly where the line is between providing accessibility accommodations and providing strategy advice, and anyone at competitive/professional rel could request one to oversee the match theres probably nowhere near enough judges to actually do that tho
I always enjoy the longer form, in depth videos of the patron pick. This is definitely a good thing to know, about what you can and can’t say. I’ve been playing for almost a decade, so I’ve picked this up along the way. But starting out, there was definitely some things I missed. Derived information is the trickiest to understand
Question: What type of information would something like number of cards someone has drawn this turn be? It's information that if you were paying attention you ought to know, but it's impossible to know if you've forgotten past game actions and without your opponent telling you.
If it's a past action that still affects the game state (example: player controls/is casting Mindless Conscription), it's free information. Otherwise, it's private.
This prompted a question for me- at my LGS, there is a player who illiterate and has mental disabilities. He has the reading comprehension and communication skills of a 7 year old, and frequently does not know what his cards say. He memorizes what the cards do based on their pictures, or has players read the cards aloud, his included. In terms of derived information, he is frankly unable to perform certain computations and reason them. So things like humility batterskull, he genuinely doesn’t understand things like that. What do you do as a judge? Especially where derived information is concerned? Curious on your take.
Thats an inclusion based question and wizards has said that reasonable accommodations are accepted as long as they are cleared with the TO beforhand. We have a guy here who is blind and has a set of brail cards (with pictures) that represent his deck. He has an interpreter who comes with him and will read all opponents cards and answer questions for him about the game state. He had to get it approved before fnm though
I'd be surprised if there are rules that would allow someone with that level of disability to play. My intent isn't to sound rude but if someone simply can't comprehend how a bunch of cards work they probably wouldn't fit into a tournament or serious play. Feels like a "If you're down with that kind of game you bend the rules and help them out. However if you don't want to play that's okay too." Situatuon. But I'm uneducated so :)
I mean...does he play in tournaments? Nothing against judges, but their primary role is to facilitate a competitive event in a fair way, with maybe a secondary focus on them being helpful to point out rules interactions in a casual setting. Maybe its not fair to me to assume this, but I imagine this person who can't read their cards isn't playing in any competitive events and so "what do you do as a judge" is boiled down to...they don't do anything, because they aren't doing anything that a judge would need to be present for. Though I think the other guy who replied probably has a more satisfying answer (and one I didn't know about, which is awesome)
Unfortunately, a judge can't do anything more for them than they could for anyone else (in comp REL) It's harsh, but the rules of MtG specifically say that comp REL tournaments are places to test the mental skills of players, so it'd be unfair to help someone who doesn't possess those skills For someone who, for example, is visually impaired, you could have a judge give you all the free information (reading all cards for you, telling you what permanents are in play/in the graveyard/etc.) and then do the derived information by yourself in whatever format is more comfortable for you In regular REL, since derived information == free information, the other player has to respond truthfully to questions and a judge is allowed to give you all derived information, depending on how many judges vs players are at the event I think it's feasible for a judge to "Shadow" the player, so to speak
@@dancingmathusalem5451 at a judge level yes- at a tournament organization there are “reasonable accommodations” that wizards accepts and facilitates. (Visually impaired for example). The usual way to go about it is to submit a request to the to before the event for what they should bring and what you will bring/ need accommodated. Within reason, you should be fine. I had a guy (i said above) who brought a deck and a brail proxy deck that he played with that we allowed. He announced the card and his caregiver searched his “real” deck for that card and put it down next to the brail one. It made his plays a little slower but it wasn’t a big deal to accommodate. We also see noise canceling headphones pretty frequently.
20:15 Does "The name of any visible object" in the definition of "Free information" include objects that are in private zones but revealed? If it does, does this mean that, while my opponent can say they only play 3 Jace Mind sculptor, if I point to a card in their deck and say "Is this a Jace Mind Sculptor" they have to answer truthfully? Or in general, if I ask what card it is they have to tell me, since it's free information?
Is there an expiration on free information? For instance, if I Scry a card, and 5 turns later my opponent asks if I put the Scry on top or bottom of my library, am I expected to remember? If I think I remember and try to answer, but remembered incorrectly, am i committing an infraction?
Your scry example becomes private information as soon as it resolves, because it's the contents of a hidden zone and something they'd only know if they were keeping "their own record of previous game actions". If they want to back up immediately when you try to make another game action, that's fine, but you don't have to answer that even later in the same turn - I'd consider it *discourteous*, but it's not a rule violation.
I liked the video very much. But what you said (and often what the the rules say) for written and spoken communication is often dependent that both (all) player share the same language. I would like to know about cases where the players (or some cards) are in a language that a player doesn´t understand and how it impacts the policy. For example what happens if I don´t recognize the spanishe braking news thoughtseize in the library when searching it with slaughter games? Furthermore can an opponent call a judge for slowplay if I search (in his oppinion) for too many cards the oracle text?
20:16 Is bluffing really a valuable part of the play experience worth taking an effort to preserve? It only ever seems to lead to bad beats and arguments in my experience.
It's much easier to give people lots of leeway with how they treat private information than to actually enforce never letting them lie about it. If you don't let people lie about private info then when I say "I don't have a counterspell" and then cast Brainstorm then crack a fetch land to shuffle, there is now no way to tell if I broke the rules. That runs counter to how MTG is generally designed. If you cast a morph, you eventually must reveal it to prove you aren't lying. If you search your library for a card with restrictions, you need to reveal it before putting it in your hand. If you search for a card with restrictions, since there isn't an easy way to prove you have none remaining, you are always allowed to fail to find. It's expected that the game will always give you ways to ensure your opponent isn't cheating that don't require you to have anyone else to independently check. One solution, which I think Yugioh uses (not entirely sure as I don't play it, but it's the impression I've got) is to not allow people to reveal any private info at all regardless of if you are telling the truth or lying. That technically solves the problem, but has it's own weird issues with deciding exactly what revealing private info is as well as having weird implications for multiplayer formats like commander where you would no longer be able to ask "does anyone have a board wipe" or say "If you can deal with his blockers, I can kill him next turn". There is also a difference in how certain types of info is treated depending on where you are playing. In a high stakes tournament, it's expected that there is more of an emphasis on testing your skills, so you do not need to give your opponent as much help hence the difference between derived and free info. Anywhere else though, there is more of a focus on learning and fun so derived info becomes free.
It's interesting comparing and contrasting this with yugioh, which as a game is much more stringent on potential "sharking" behavior to the point of being pretty restrictive. One example of this is that in yugioh's tournament policy, you cannot tell your opponent ANYTHING about private information, false OR true. So, for example, if your opponent asks you if you had a certain card in your hand, you could not tell your opponent any concrete answer regardless of what is actually in your hand. "Intentionally revealing information that is considered Private Knowledge, may result in a Disqualification penalty." - Quote straight from the tournament policy.
Another related Yugioh quirk, related to the Slaughter Games example. In Yugioh, there's a card that used to see competitive play called Mind Crush. Mind Crush reads "Declare 1 card name; if that card is in your opponent's hand, they must discard all copies of it, otherwise you discard 1 random card." You might notice a key piece missing in resolving this effect. Originally, for the rules enforcement outside of Japan, the ruling was that if your opponent did not have the named card in their hand, you could check their hand to verify, the combination of being able to snipe important cards as well as getting knowledge about what interaction you're oppenent had in hand on whiff was very powerful. However, this was not the original intent of the card. It doesn't say in the text you ever get to look at your opponents cards and the modern rulings support this. This means that if you name a card and your opponent says there's no copies in their hand You are NOT allowed to verify in any way. In fact, it's explicit in the tournament policy document that you are not even allowed to call a judge to verify unless you have other reason to believe they're lying (such as you use mind crush naming a card and they use that card later that turn without drawing)
@@critttlerI really appreciate that Magic is designed to allow lying about private information without allowing breaking the rules. Everything that puts restrictions based on the characteristics of objects hidden to your opponents will force you to reveal it at some point (morph, foretell, tutors with restrictions, etc) or require you to keep them separate (miracles, Sylvan library, having both morphs and manifests). Failing to find is allowed specifically because it's not worth it to let the opponent look at your library. Not making lying against the rules also means you don't need to worry about some of the rulings I've heard about how you are or aren't allowed to bluff Nibiru. It's perfectly fine to say "this is your second spell, so one more and I get to cast Mindbreak Trap".
20:12 really, it feels like the problem is that what's in the library is *amy's* private information, and is nick's private information as well, since he can figure out what's in it using his decklist and what he's drawn, so hes effectively lying to her about her own private information that she has access to it feels like the only real way to fix this would be something that addresses scenarios when one player's private information is something the other player has/could presumably have as their own private information as well (it gets more complicated if there are cards that have been face-down exiled from the searched player's library, but at that point the fact that they dont know everything about their library is already visible, so theres probably a way to resolve it as well)
So, I can totally believe that there would be issues with it since I don't know everything, but I'm really curious what the issue might be with just, say, considering the library to be free information (or at least derived) while an opponent's searching it or otherwise has a way to look at all the cards. I guess it could cause issues in multiplayer games, but is that it or am I missing something a little more lawyery and arcane? Great job explaining as always by the way, love your work!
20:52 Interesting considering Arena's recent comments about "sneaky reach" and the change to make it obnoxiously obvious. Wonder when deathtouch and other abilities will get a similar graphic...
I think the biggest criticism to derived and private information comes from the possibility to abuse it for legal slowplay. I think that in the case of rel making a rule saying something like denying derived information or searching a hidden zone for the purpose of slowplay or reaching a draw by technicality is illegal would potentially be something to consider but also would be somewhat hard to objectively enforce
I would say in the jace/slaughter games example the easiest change is that all zones in which all cards are revealed to all players are considered free information. This would mean when resolving surgical or slaughter games all zones from the targeted player are free information. The reason I think this ruling needs changed is not because of the example exactly shown, but because the targeted player isn't required to let anyone else search their library physically, and may instead reveal the whole thing. With all the different art and stylistic variations of cards these days, it is very feasible that one copy of a card is way different than the others and could easily be missed.
This doesn't work since the library is still a hidden zone for the player being searched. You also cannot reveal the whole thing as you say because you do not always know the exact contents of your library and don't have access to that information. (See effects like pyxis of pandemonium)
The stylistic variations brings up another question - if you're looking at a private zone and a card is either in a foreign language or is full art with no name, is your opponent required to answer what the card is?
How about a sportsmanship assistance type rule? When assisting another player in resolving an ability, you cannot lie. This doesn't obligate you to help. It just takes away deception as a tool in this instance.
Problem with this is that it's difficult to come up with a consistent standard. In some cases, you are obligated to assist your opponent in resolving a spell, and required, not just to avoid lying, but also to proactively remind them of things they can do. Unifying everything together into a single policy that keeps all the original rulings the same would be a big task.
@@miserepoignee9594 That isn't a problem. In the cases you're obligated to assist, you also aren't allowed to lie. So saying that in all cases when assisting in resolving a spell or ability, you aren't allowed to lie doesn't really jostle anything else, I think. In the case that someone is just asking, you aren't helping to resolve an ability so this doesn't cut into a player's ability to bluff in a sporting manner.
I did quite extensive researches on that subject before. So most of I already knew. The one thing that tripped me up is slaughter game. When I think about it logically, as someone who hates having my cards touched by others and touching other's, is that, if you can look at your opponent's deck and hand, they become derived information, since they are things *you can* look up on the board during the card's effect and lying about it would be getting in the way of you finding the information. As I typed that, I realized it'd be at least a problem in games with more than two players.
Question about Ascend on sorceries and instants: Since you only change to get the blessing as the spell resolves, do you need to announce if you have 10 permanents before the spell resolves?
Based on the video, you wouldn't have to, number of objects in play is derived information. And you only have to declare status information when it changes. (Disclaimer, not a judge here, but the video gave enough info to answer the question)
Yep, in the scenario, Amy would not have needed to announce Ascend effect until the resolution of Golden Demise, so Nick cannot suggest he would've countered that spell. He could potentially have asked for a back-up to the resolution of Golden Demise, but probably the judge wouldn't allow that if there were more game actions in-between as Nick would then have information about Vona's Hunger in Amy's hand.
Players are expected to see Ascend on a spell and count the number of permanents the player controls. In the example, Amy no longer had 10 permanents, but still has the city's blessing until the game ends, and there was no announcement & physical marker that that was the case, and counting permanents wouldn't help.
@@LibertyMonk Having the City's Blessing is Status Information, it is continuous information with no expiration. Status information must be announced when changed and physically tracked by the affected player. (2:00 & 11:48) There is a City's Blessing "token", which should be used to indicate the current Status information. If the "token" is not available, another method, agreed upon by both players, is to be used. In the example, Amy should have been using some physical marker to track the status, which was visible to all. @HarbingerOfMe Amy would only need to announce she has the City's Blessing once it was acquired (acquiring 10 permanents and either resolve a spell with Ascend, or having a Permanent on the Battlefield with Ascend).
With the Vona’s Hunger, the City’s Blessing status information may not be relevant until the Hunger is in the process of resolving right? As part of the resolution of Vona’s Hunger, the game checks to see if you have 10 Permanents and from there determines if you have it. If Amy cast Vona’s Hunger with 10 permanents but without having previously Ascended, then they will not have the cities blessing until it is already too late for their opponent to do anything right? Therefore asking whether they have the cities blessing before the spell resolves the correct answer from Amy would be “no”.
Correct, however in this example she did have City's Blessing beforehand so since that was status info, she was supposed to announce and physically track it.
I think there is a card what makes card names and abilities disappear,in that case if they ask,what a card does,after i made the texts disappear? In that case,card names and abilities still would be free information or?
If a lantern of insight is in play and an opponent has revealed their hand previously to a thoughtseize what state are the cards in your opponent's hand considered?
They're still private information. You only have access to them if you can determine it from the current visible game state (no) or your records of previous game actions (possibly).
Does incomplete information matter in terms of what card is played? Can I simply put a land into play without saying the name or any other form of communication besides putting it with my other lands? Can I put it underneath (but still visible) my other lands so my opponent has less chance to recognize the land that I'm playing? I know the ruling about creatures being grouped together changed due to the Dryad Arbor play, but even during that play, was game state being properly communicated? Is relying on visual cues sufficient to convey game state when you play a card? Do we really have to memorize every printing, every foreign version, and even recognize legal card alters? Is only seeing the Title of a card sufficient if it's in another language that I can't even read?
Reading the rules carefully, I believe you do not need to announce playing a land or many free spells (that don't otherwise affect status information). However, what land you played counts as "Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state." and is therefore free information, and if your opponent asks, "did you play a land?" or "what land did you just play?" you are obligated to answer correctly. If they don't notice... as long as your land is not actively hidden, then that seems to be their problem.
Hiding land in a pile is not allowed, though stacking them with all names visible is ok. And you don't have to announce the name of a land or spell you play, though you must answer honestly if asked (or call a judge if you're unsure), since that is free information. Announcing card names when they're played is a common courtesy. @@bluerendar2194 yeah, you don't need to announce anything about a spell if simply putting it on the stack is unambiguous because there are no modes or targets etc to announce. But, you are required to pass priority to your opponent, and wait for them to acknowledge and pass it back to you (thus giving them the chance to respond) before the spell can resolve. Playing a land doesn't require such, you can immediately cast a spell or activate an ability once the land enters play, unless it entering triggered abilities.
You don't have to memorize all printings of a card: if you're usnure, you can just ask the opponents what card it is and they have to respond truthfully ("The name of any visible object." is free information,) Once you have the name, you can access the Oracle text (by asking a judge if necessary) If you're not sure about how many lands the opponent has, while they don't have to say, they can't lie about it or actively stop you from counting it. So if they don't answer you, you can just tell them "Hey, can you move your arm, I can't see your lands" and they have to let you count them
~10:30 "cards are considered to have their oracle text printed on them" Does this mean that if you're playing with textless cards or foreign language cards you can just show them to your opponent if they ask what a card does and make no other effort to explain it?
Did I get this correct? Number of cards in library is derived info so on regular REL it is free info and my opponent can keep asking me how many cards I have in my library and every time I must answer them correctly and if I miscount, I can get in trouble.
I think that if they ask you every turn of the game, then a judge would probably tell them to stop because of slow play. I also doubt that you would get in trouble for making an honest mistake especially given that regular rules enforcement has an emphasis on learning and doesn't have as strict of penalties (the IPG doesn't apply at regular REL which has its own document).
Keep in mind the rules also need to account for multiplayer. Just because information has been revealed to you and one other player, doesn't mean it's public information, or that all players have that information revealed to them. Slaughter games lets the player casting the spell look at your library, but the game may well contain players for which the contents of your deck is still private. So is your rule to make information revealed to *any* other player derived information, only information revealed to *all* players derived information, does it matter with whom you're communicating to, or something else entirely?
@@user-jd5kb7ri5r i had that thought as well! I think there's a combination of factors that could resolve it: multiplayer tends to be inherently casual, where etiquette is different. Alternatively, perhaps an expanded definition of "derived" to apply differently to different players. The player revealing the library has obligations to some players but not others. Or perhaps it just solves itself: by being "derived", a third player not involved in the exchange asks a question and the library owner is simply not obligated to answer
@@BrockToews The library owner does not necessarily know the contents of their own library. For example cards could have poreviously been exiled face down. If the contents of the library would become derived information, the player being searched would need to be allowed to derive, e.g. the number of Jaces in their own ibrary thus giving them information they should not have about e.g. face-down exiled cards. (Unless I misunderstood the video. I'm not a judge)
@@nathanmcduck2999 that's a really good point. The library is not revealed to its owner. Effectively equivalent to my opponent searching their library for a basic land, and my informing them "you are all out of basic lands" so they decide to fail to find.
I'm confused about why the example with Slaughter Games is above board but the example with Thoughtseize is a CPV. Since Nick's hand is still private information even though it's revealed, why is it a CPV to misrepresent the type of card that Sea Gate Restoration is?
The Oracle text of cards is derived information, but the number of cards with a certain name in a player's deck isn't. If you ask someone what Jace the Mind Sculptor's 0 ability does while resolving a Praetor's Grasp and considering taking their Japanese copy, they couldn't lie about it. (They could decide not to tell you what it did, but you could also just ask a judge for the Oracle text).
What is the reasoning behind things like number of cards in hand or P/T of a creature not being considered free information? It's "free" in MTG Arena (even in MTGO), so why not in paper magic?
What if the lifegain was Genju of the Fields instead? If when the discrepancy was noticed, if Nick brought it up, would it be considered that he's preemptively chosen to allow the trigger to go on the stack, or would he get to choose, as normal, whether an opponent's missed trigger goes on the stack?
It's allowed for a player to assume that their opponent has missed a triggered ability (which this instance of lifegain is). In the situation you described, that answer would be up to the judge; I think most judges would rule the latter possibility.
So this is pretty much entirely a "missed trigger" issue, not a lifegain issue. But for the trigger to be missed, the must have passed beyond the point where the trigger could possibly still be on the stack. So if, at the point that the discrepancy is noticed, everything that has happened would still be valid if that trigger were to have been on the stack since its conditions were met, then it's still on the stack. If not, it was missed, and like any missed trigger (at competitive REL) the opponent chooses if it goes on the stack "now" or not unless it's been more than a full turn cycle (at which point even that can't happen). As an example, if you attack, then after doing damage cast an instant that involves paying life, and that's when you notice the discrepancy, then the trigger can still be "on the stack" because casting the instant in the damage step is valid. But if it's the next players turn after they attacked for 2, like in the video, then that wouldn't be able to happen with the lifegain trigger still on the stack, so it was a missed trigger.
20:10: Change the wording on "private information" to not rely on hidden zones, then change the wording on "derived information" to include "any zone the player can currently access, including any hidden zones they do not control". Then Nick cannot lie about that information when (and only when) Amy has access to that zone, it puts the burden of strategy on Amy to make sure she only asks questions/only believes information given about these zones at opportune moments, and it makes the game more accessible for people with discalculia and the like (as you yourself said earlier, it would be unreasonable to write down all this derived information). It is the logical answer. It is the intuitive way to interpret "derived" information. Perhaps more importantly, you yourself said earlier in the video that players must ALWAYS answer honestly the card name even if it is "in a foreign language or cringy unreadable art", and letting players lie about hidden zones when to another player who currently has access to that hidden zone opens a door. Like say for example your cringy unreadable card was in your graveyard, and the Amy playing Slaughter Games asks what the card is called (because she can't read it) while searching the library. Amy is asking about a card in a public zone, as the same card exists in the graveyard and Amy knows it, but Nick can *interpret* her question as being about a card in his library (because it's the same card, and she is currently searching the library) and lie about it. Thus, Nick is lying about a card that he explicitly had to tell the truth about, because he chose to interpret the rules in a toxic way. Thus Amy misses the copy in the library AND in the graveyard because Nick lied about a card that the rules state (in their current iteration) that he can both lie and not lie about, depending on what part of the rules you choose to refer to.
The problem is that while a player searching their opponent's library, that doesn't mean the library is revealed to it's owner. If the first player took a card with Gonti, their opponent can't look through to deduce what they took. The card Guided Passage specifically needs to say that you "reveal your library" for it's effect to work because it isn't normally revealed. Changing derived information also isn't really possible since if you are at regular rel, derived information becomes free information so you don't want it to include your hand. "At Regular Rules Enforcement Level, all derived information is instead considered free."
In a casual LGS setting, I had a land enchanted with a utopia sprawl underneath it, but with card name clearly visible. My opponent played a spell forcing me to sacrifice an enchantment with the intent of removing my enchantment creature. When I sacrificed my utopia sprawl instead they made a stink about misrepresenting my board state. I've never had anyone complain about this before or since in a casual setting. Is this a problem in tournaments or were they just salty for misplaying?
I'm not a judge but, everyone i know that plays magic does the same thing. Auras and equipment underneath the permanent they are attached to. I've had Boggles players put the stack of enchantments next to the creature because it becomes rather burdensome to put 8 enchantments underneath a card. Unless you had the land "covered" or veiled somehow I'd say don't worry about it. As an added note: when i have anything "weird" going on w/ a permanent, especially lands, i usually set it to the side so it is easier to see, both for myself and my opponent. I usually stack my lands in 3's so my lands might be LLL LLL L(Enchanted)
2:25 a boogie board? thats kind of like a surfboard so i dont think that would be appropriate for tracking life in a game. im guessing thats a local term for a white board?
How does multiplayer communication work? Obviously, the contents of a library are private information, but if I control Opposition Agent, I may be permitted to look through your library. As I do, am I permitted to tell the rest of the table the names of cards that are in the library? Am I permitted to mention notable cards that I suspect may be in that player's hand because I do not see them in the library?
@@seandun7083 MTR 3.13 explicitly addresses this - controlling another player doesn't let you show their hidden information to a 3rd party, but you can always say whatever you want about it.
@@siosilvar unless I have the wrong version, I don't see anything mentioning that. 3.13 Hidden Information Hidden information refers to the faces of cards and other objects at which the rules of the game and format do not allow you to look.Throughout the match, a draft, and pregame procedures, players are responsible for keeping their cards above the level of the playing surface and for making reasonable efforts to prevent hidden information from being revealed.However, players may choose to reveal their hands or any other hidden information available to them, unless specifically prohibited by the rules. Players must not actively attempt to gain information hidden from them butare not required to inform opponents who are accidentally revealing hidden information. "Players may choose to reveal their hands or any other hidden information available to them unless specifically prohibited by the rules" seems to imply that you can unless there is a specific rule against it.
@@seandun7083 Note for Multiplayer play: The MTR is written predominately for 1v1 play, or 2v2 in the case of 2HG. It has not been given an overhaul for pod formats like Commander. To that end, parts of the MTR are written using language assuming one opponent or opposing team. In a game with multiple opponents, if a player is controlling another player, the controlling player cannot force the controlled player to reveal their hand to the other opponents. The controlling player may say what cards they can see, but they may not physically show the controlled players cards to other players or direct the controlled player to show the cards, outside of executing a game effect that requires the cards to be revealed.
I have a question about the City Blessing case at the end... if Amy cast Golden Demise while having the blessing - and the reminder text specifically states that you have it for the rest of the game - and the effect was acknowledged by both players are the table, is she really gonna be penalized for Nick not noticing it later?
In this case I believe the idea was that the effect was not recognized by both players. Regardless, you do need to track it somehow. "Status information is information that must be announced upon change and physically tracked by the affectedplayer. Methods for tracking must be visible to both players during the match." If she announced that she got it when she cast the first spell and put the "City's Blessing" card out or wrote it in an understandable way on the piece of paper that was being used to track life, then she should be fine.
Sure, but like... Amy could operate under the assumption that Nick already knew about the City Blessing, since he did acknowledged Golden Demise resolution?
@@wojtektaracinski7977 you can't just assume your opponent knows about it. Status information "must be announced upon change" and "must be physically tracked". If you say you get it, but don't track it, or just get the token out without also making sure your opponent knows about it, I'm pretty sure you are in the wrong.
Being used to playing Casual Commander, I am used to casual communication. A frequently seen interaction is when a player asks to see another player's graveyard, or asks "what creatures are in your graveyard?" How is that supposed to be handled as per official rules? Is it different if a player specifically does not want anyone touching their cards, for example if they are playing with expensive versions?
That's free information - "the name of any visible object", so you have to tell your opponent (or call a judge and tell them you're annoyed, at which point they'll probably just tell you to rearrange your graveyard to be easier to see).
As long as everyone can see see it, it's fine. The rules don't define how to communicate, they just require that both parties understand For example, if you don't want other players to touch your cards, you can display your graveyard yourself in a way where the other players can see it when they ask you to (by fanning it out or whatever) and then reading any card that they ask about more specifically (or telling them the name and having them pull up the oracle text even, but i think that might start to fall under slow play unless the card is foreign/borderless/cringe secret lair etc. and you can't physically read it)
Note that "At Regular Rules Enforcement Level, all derived information is instead considered free." Also "Free information is information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made by their opponents"
I think to change the slaughter games interaction to be illegal for nick to lie about how many Jayce he has in his deck would be to make it so the library and hand stop being private zones for the duration of the search. Not sure if that would cause any other problems somehow though.
It means you get to see what card someone takes with Gonti or Praetor's Grasp. When searching a library, only the person searching gets to look at it. That's why Guided Passage has to say you "reveal your library".
@@seandun7083 that don't have to make it a public zone, they could call it a "shared zone" or something, and give only the people who the search allows to see it access to knowledge about it.
imo at regular rel outright lying about private info shouldnt be allowed, but not answering or answering ambiguously should be if the point of regular rel is fun and education, i dont find lying to be either
The example of the Batterskull germ token and Humility is an interesting one. Could you expand upon asking a judge the same question in a different way? What if, instead of asking the original question, the player posed "How much damage would I take from this attack?" or, "how much life would I gain attacking with this Batterskull equipped germ? Would both of those variations also fall under the derived information communication policy?
It does seem messed up that a judge isn't allowed to answer questions which have been shown on this channel because of how unintuitive their answers are.
Saying which effect applies first should be pretty much equivalent to answering the question outright. The only thing left for the player to do is actually calculate what the resultant p/t is. The reason judges are not supposed to help with derived information related to the board state is because derived information may require some amount of skill or calculation to determine. If the judge does that for the players, it undermines part of the skill that's supposed to be in the game.
Couldn't the Slaughter games example be worded such that the contents of the library not count as 'private information' while it is being revealed? It feels like it should be derived information, similar to the example with thoughtseize and the player putting the modal land in the wrong group. That way the opponent is not required to say "i have 4 Jace's" but they can't lie the way they did. This seems intuitive both in the slaughter games case and in the way I would naturally interpret the rules.
I’m not saying they openly tell them, I’m saying it’s derived information which is the one where you don’t have to say anything but you can’t say false statements Which was the case when revealing your hand to the thoughtseize
Searching someone's library doesn't reveal it. The libraries owner still can't look at it (so they can't deduce what you stole with Gonti). Look at Guided Passage for a card that does reveal, but isn't affected by Aven Mindcensor.
20:16 If a library gets fully revealed by a spell or effect to an opponent, it's content is treated as public information when it comes to questions and matters required to resolve the spell or ability. Players may not represent the state of the cards of their library inaccurately or lie about the revealed cards. If the hand is revealed same applies to the cards in hand. Questions about cards expected, but not found in the revealed zones must not be answered unless the legality of the deck or similar is questioned. In those cases the apporitet rules for an illegal deck are to be followed. Let me know if this breaks anything, I doubt it does.
The problem is that searching an opponent's library doesn't reveal it to that player or anyone else other than you. This is especially relevant due to cards like Gonti making it impossible for a player to always know the contents of their library. That change would really only affect the card Guided Passage.
@@seandun7083 Well though, obviously they could errata the cards to that, but I am not holding my breath for that. Nonetheless, the wording would simply change to "If a spell or effect makes a player search another players library, that player must answer questions related to the resolution to the spell or ability honestly. Such things may include the number of copies of a card in the main deck and the number of those cards in other public zones. Unless the effect also allows the other player to look at the hand information about cards is treated as non public " We can keep spinning it and spinning it, I am not a judge, but let's not act like you can't say "Hey when someone looks at your deck you must be honest about it to save us time and a headache " it is not masterful bluff to lie about the number of copies. All the current state of rules does is encourage people to take longer to look through the deck as their opponent is allowed to lie about the number of cards.
Rule Change: While a hidden zone or a subset of a hidden zone is revealed, information in it stops being Private and defaults to what it would be in a public zone. Therefore the number of Jaces becomes derived information and he can't lie about how many he has. As soon as it's not revealed, it defaults back to private information
As someone who played this Game for decades and judged over 100 Events at my LGS it's still wild for me that it's okay to lie. Nevertheless the situation. How can lieing ever be good sportsmanship. Bluffing=don't say anything. Playing in a way that suggests something.
I'm not an expert, but I think it comes from the tradition of card games. Poker, gin, old maid, etc. is all okay and expected that players lie about what's in their hand. Heck, there's even card games that parody this behavior and the whole point is to lie about what's in your hand (cheat/bs/I doubt it)
It's not a given that any lie in any game is automatically bad sportsmanship. Plenty of games even have lying as a core mechanic (BS is an example of one, but I would be surprised if anyone got upset that someone lied about the color of their last card in Uno). Because of this, the exact meaning of bluffing also varies based on the context of the game. When making a competitive game you need to come up with guidelines to decide both if it's okay to lie and if so, when is it okay to lie. It's okay that magic has decided saying "I have a counterspell" when you don't have one is fine and it's okay that some other games don't allow that.
@@seandun7083 casual bluffing games are not serious competitive games. That's why we talk about sportsmanship. Here is the thing: high level magic should be an endorser and a good example for FNMs and other local events. How is this good, when a new player gets the experience that he lost because he fell to a lie of the experienced opponent. How does this reflect the game and community.
@@miserepoignee9594 hmm, if you told at the old times in the west that you played 3 aces and said it were all and then pull another one later you probably just got shot....
If the top card of my library was revealed by a Courser of Kruphix, and then the Courser is removed, and I turn the top card of my library face-down again, if my opponent asks what it was, what are my obligations in that scenario?
So, ok. 1) Oracle text is derived info, 2) cards are considered to be printed with their oracle text (regardless of what's actually on the card). Does that really mean if you embiggen a blighted agent, and they ask "How many creature types does that have?" you can just show them the printed card with its two types, say "Just what's on the card", and if they don't use a removal spell and die from taking 5 poison instead of the 4 they thought, you're 100% in the clear? I guess it's kind of like humility+magus of the moon for the layers system, where it's a relatively rare undesirable/unintuitive outcome that's unavoidable as a side effect of having consistently applicable rules.
20:15 wouldn't "any information that every player in the match has access to is derived information" cover that issue? at least i can't think of anything that would be broken by it.
Searching a library doesn't reveal it to all players which is relevant for cards like Praetor's Grasp. Guided Passage needs to go out of its way to reveal the library to prevent them from failing to find.
@@seandun7083 i know, but the opponent has a different way to know he is making an incorrect claim, because he registered the deck. I guess it is not as clean as i thought when i wrote the comment, but wouldn't it still be possible to say "it is illegal to make a wrong claim when everyone could know that it is wrong?
@@redstonepro5412 there is still the problem that a card from your library may have been exiled face down so that you do not know it's contents (with the aforementioned Praetor's Grasp or something like Pyxis of Pandemonium). In addition, it's a lot to assume that everyone can always remember the exact amount of copies of each card they have in their deck, especially in games where some move around a lot by milling, being grabbed by wishes, being exiled under something like leyline binding or being shuffled back in. You also have to add a lot more rules to determine what "everyone knows it is wrong means". If you look at my hand and see only a mountain, then next turn I play a mountain with different art, do I still need to answer truthfully if you ask me what's in my hand? Would that change if I played a card with the same art but a different set symbol? It also adds the whole new aspect of having to remember exactly which cards of mine my opponent has seen to avoid making illegal statements.
In a casual setting, we've always gone by the 'no gaslighting' standard. That is to say, if a player is or should be able to see a piece of information, you are not allowed to lie about it to their face. The situation where Amy is searching Bob's library for multiple copies of a card, and Bob claims that there are only 3 copies in the deck, would probably be one of the very few corner cases where this rule of thumb does not function in sync with the actual rules - if the information of what the cards in Bob's library currently are is currently available information to Amy, then Bob should not be able to directly misrepresent that information. Attempting to conceal information about objects zone which is being revealed by some effect or game rule seems like it would be attempting to not 'reveal' them properly. Consider. Amy plays Telepathy, requiring Bob to play with his hand revealed. Bob should not be able to, for example, hide any of the cards in his revealed hand underneath other cards so they are not easily visible. He should also not be permitted to lie to Amy about the contents of his revealed hand - he is not required to say anything at all about it, but he still should not be permitted to lie about it, despite the fact that his hand is normally a private zone. Actively trying to confuse your opponent about revealed information is an attempt to conceal that information; i.e. an attempt to avoid doing something an effect or game action has directly instructed you to do. And if Bob knows an effect or game rule is directly instructing him to do something, and tries to get away with not doing it, that seems like it ought to be red-letter Cheating. If Amy uses a Slaughter Games to search Bob's library for a particular card name, and Bob's only copy in deck is a foreign-language or otherwise illegible version of that card, is Bob allowed to lie and claim there are no copies of that card in his library? Amy is naturally allowed to ask point-blank what the name of each foreign language card she is able to see actually is (the name of visible cards is Free information, so can't be lied about or refused to disclose), but does she actually have to ask bob about each individual such card to make sure it is not actually the card she is naming? Does claiming that there are no copies of that card in his library constitute lying about the name of an object that is visible to Amy, and thus a violation of the Free Information rule? This does seem like a place where the floor rules could use a little tightening up in some way, though I would guess that the reason it has not been yet is that most players would not attempt to directly tell false information about something their opponent can openly see, since in almost all other cases that is a violation.
The foreign-language thing is a really good point I didn't consider! It certainly seems like it could be problematic. I suppose since usually comp events are open-decklist, arguably that should be the fall-back to determine if something fishy is going on. Actually, shouldn't the decklist then be derived/public information then? So, Bob could arguably be misrepresenting the decklist then.
In a casual setting, that seems fine, but refusing to follow game instructions by hiding a card beneath another is not the same as giving a sarcastic answer about a hidden zone (even if revealed) if someone asking you to do their looking for them. It also has consequences in multiplayer, because searching doesn't reveal, verbally lying to bluff the players who aren't allowed to see is valid, as is being truthful (as long as you don't show them the hidden cards). @@bluerendar2194the cards asked about could be in the sideboard, and providing decklists (Prof not Comp REL) is to negate the disadvantage of your matches being broadcast by coverage. As for the damaged/unrecognizable card deal, yeah it's stupid, but WotC keeps printing unrecognizable versions of cards. Cards that aren't recognizable as their originally printed art or name are illegal in tournament settings, but secret lairs and other alt-arts exist and are allowed. Outside of sanctioned events, the rules don't matter.
@@bluerendar2194 I had a weird corner case surrounding this come up. My opponent used Mishra's Bauble on me when I had a fetchland in play (their sub-optimal play is not the point of this). They were a pretty experienced player, so could tell what my cards were without having to read them. However, when he had to look closely at the top card, I knew it had to be a Thoughseize on top, since that was the only foreign language card in the deck, and a Secret Lair printing so it wasn't immediately obvious what card it was. So I knew not to crack the fetch I had in play to draw the Thoughtseize to clear the way for a Dauthi I had in hand. But at the same time if my opponent was less experienced they would have had no way to know for sure what card it was without letting me know what I had on top of my deck.
In a casual setting, Bob could very well not know how many are in his deck via a Bomat Courier or other exile face down effect, or just not remembering if he did cut 2 of X card for 2 more of Y. Most casual players are not going to be able to recite the exact numbers of every card in a single 60 card list. For me, being wrong (unless you're like really insisting that there are a specific # exactly) shouldn't be seen as cheating a tourney grinder sure, but kitchen table Bob that adds and removes cards every time he buys a few packs. That said, In a casual setting, i would expect them to just exile the card now and draw another instead of playing it to win the game.
With your slaughter games example why didnt she just search their hand for jace like the card allows them to do ? Like nick should have put his hand face up on the table when amy casy slaughter games so that she could search his hand like the card says she is supposed to.
@@seandun7083 right but he already got 3 out of the library when they asked the question ?, the only way this works is if the player grabbed the 3 from the library and then said "Hey Buddy do you have one in your hand?" and when they said "no" they just choose to yeild their right to check.... which like you should never do, like look at his hand and call the guy out ?
@@joshuaturner4602or they stopped searching when they hit the third to save time since they trusted their opponent who said they only had 3. Regardless, the point of the scenario is to illustrate you are allowed to lie about certain things involving private info.
Once I asked an opponent "Is your tarmogoyf 4/5?" he replied "yes"; I attacked with my 5/5 creature, he blocked and said it was 5/6. Was this lie legal?
As covered, you can't directly lie about derived information. You can refuse to answer or mislead, but your opponent in this question just said something which was not true.
Re Slaughter Games - Any zone being searched becomes temporarily non-private to any player with permission to search it until their permission to search it has ended. For the sake of making games go by faster, I think lying at this stage should be considered cheating. Otherwise you have to look through the deck multiple times to ensure you didn't miss one. The player can still say "I have 3 JTMS", but not "I have only 3 JTMS".
The rules can't really have information which is derived to one player and private to another. Besides, a player won't always know the contents of their library due to effects like Gonti.
I wouldn't really know how to word it properly, but I feel like with the Slaughter Games/Jace thing, it should be like derived information at least while the spell is resolving. You don't have to assist and tell them "I have 4 Jaces" but you shouldn't be allowed to lie while they're looking through it. Saying "I only run 3" sounds like you're just trying to speed things up so once I've found the last one we can move on. Granted, I'd assume most people would look at everything anyway because hey now I can see everything in their deck, but still, being able to blatantly lie while I'm looking through it in hopes that I don't look for that 4th one because maybe we're running low on time and we're trying to speed up is just unsporting.
The problem is that searching an opponent's library doesn't reveal it to that opponent. If you ask "how many Jaces are you playing", then that number is private since he might have some in his hand. If you ask "how many Jaces are currently in your library", then that player might not know themselves if some cards have been exiled face down with Gonti, Lord of Luxury.
Doesn't this mean that if I am asked for cards in deck followed by a deck list I can say a decklist that is entirely made up and directly contradictory?
If a judge asks then you can't. "Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match"
Here's one that I remember created a huge heated debate on Reddit: Alice and Bob are playing in a tournament. Alice begins by playing an Island and casting Thought Scour, targeting Bob to make him mill two cards. As Bob is flipping the top card of his library over, he sees that it's a card he doesn't want Alice to know that it's in his deck. So he says "I scoop, game 2?" and puts it back on top of the deck. Alice never sees the cards he was supposed to mill. Now the question is, does Alice have a right to see what card Bob saw? My guess is no, since you can concede any time during a game. However, one could reasonably argue that the card was in the graveyard already and was public knowledge. After all, Bob forfeited out of the desire to conceal information that both players should have gotten simultaneously.
GPE Looking at Extra Cards and maybe even Unsporting Conduct Cheating (intent is there, knowing it's a violation may not be). The cards move from the library to the graveyard, there's no point at which Bob has access to that information under the rules and Alice doesn't.
@@siosilvar This question has already been ruled on. Most commonly with players conceding before showing the Dark Confidant reveal to the opponent. This is legal. There is no defined hand movement to reveal a card. If a player flips the card in a method that enables them to see the card first then that's that. And by the rules a player can concede at ANY TIME, even in the middle of resolving a trigger. This is just a consequence of the rules. Bob was not looking at extra cards, they were performing a game action and conceded in the middle of that action.
@@Ekke-MarkusMuttika I disagree on that one because that wouldn't be a legal game state if Bob didn't concede, but I suppose Scott Marshall's opinion overrules mine.
Why would you need to bluff about JTMS? Your opponent is already looking through your library. This is just rushing them, which carries its own kind of infraction.
20:20 Can’t you just say that while hidden information is revealed to a player typically not privy to that information, it is considered derived instead? Nick doesn’t have to say he has 4 JtMS’s, but he can’t lie and say he has 3. All other bluffs are valid while the information is not revealed, including saying he lacks any more Jace’s if Amy missed the fourth while searching.
The problem is that information can only be derived if all players have access to it. Searching a library only lets the player who is searching look through it (and the owner might not know all the cards in it due to Gonti) so it can't be derived).
I either disagree with your final ruling or at minimum suspect not enough information was presented in the example given. You mention that Amy plays a city's blessing card when she has enough tokens to meet the requirement for the Blessing. She should have announced having the city's blessing at that casting. Later, if she sacrificed treasures, she is under no obligation to announce she still has the city's blessing, because nothing has changed. Assuming she is representing the blessing with a physical object and both players were fine with that during the casting of Golden Demise, and assuming she wasn't hiding that representation or was directly asked about whether she still had the blessing, she has not committed any communication violation. It was a play mistake on Nick thinking that the City's Blessing ended when she no longer had 10 permanents. But Amy never gave notification or representation that she "lost" the City's Blessing.
He mentions that based on the information given it doesn't seem like Amy did make an announcement when she first got the City's Blessing and it doesn't seem like she was physically tracking it either. But yeah, if she was doing that, she had no obligation to announce that she still had it while casting another spell that cared about it.
In the Amy and Nick, "Jace, the Mind Sculptor" scenario. Are decklists not available information to all players (at least at competitive REL) in which case the number of Jaces Nick is playing would be free information. I would think this is a violation by Nick.
@@matthewjohnson3656 I could have sworn they were simply because of issues with spectators telling other players "Hey this guy has CARDNAME in his deck"
@@williamdrum9899 Depends on the event. Paper decklists are considered notes that you can look at while sideboarding but not during the game. MTGA, decklists are either totally private or totally open at any time.
Tbh the Slaughter Game is probably fine as it is.. I like the spirit players shouldnt be punished, but rather rewarded for knowing the ruels better than opponent. SLaughter games also specifily says up to..so Its hard to draw (nonethical) argument about lying here when the card even allows you to not exile every card of that name even in public zones. Though honesty, casual/FNM? Trust your opponent its low stakes, give them the benefit of trust. If they end up later playing another? Well tough luck, trust is over for following matches. Is it higher level? Search..through..the..library and other zones. (I would add a bit about writing it down as notes, but I m not too sure anymore, hand would probably fly, deck not). But search through it throughfully and actually register what opponent plays. For a few reasons : 1) decks may wary in tech etc. Youre dont have to play arround cardsd your opponent doesnt play and if he have some niche tech well now you know 2) you wont miss the extra cards. 3) what will opponent do? call a judge on you for doing what the card tells you to do? Anyway the Nighthawk I dont think anyone can argue anything there. Amy asked how many untapped creatures Nick have. Thats all she asked. Nick answered fully and truthfully. The game is old, deathtouch as a keyword was I believe ...in 2011 introduced and some creatures probably had it before it was a keyword. Its nothing new. In fact Nick provided MORE informations that were asked. He didnt even had to mention that he have a flying creature. That being said Hiding Dryad in the lands is after certain incidnet against the rules. I (again I didnt finished my judge exams because I didnt had any L2? judge near back then)..is Id say warning for Nick (this was intentional attempt to get advantage over Amy especially considering that he refused to provide information about blocker) + back up to beggining of combat step. I personally enforce that If I somehow play. To the point where I am willing to call a judge. JUDGE! My opponent is having improperly represented board..and if opponent does it again I call judge over and over again since I hate this. Bluffing is fine, hiding informations or hoping I ll oversee something is not. Btw Dave say I would be playing in tournament youre judging and I call you over this and lets say...its the second time (different game) vs same opponent. What do you do? City blessing is imo pretty clear, If its represented then Amy is in the right, if it isnt represented on the board then shes in the wrong and probably back up before the resolution and tell Amy to put a representation.
What if a player cast Basalt Monolith and while it is on the stack an opponent asks if she will be able to make “infinite” colorless mana if it resolves(knowing the artifact combos with a lot of things to do this but not seeing it in anything the caster has on board)? The caster says no and the opponent decides not to counter the spell. When the Monolith hits the board the player combos it with Rings of Brighthearth to make 10000 colorless mana. When the opponent objects she says she wasn’t giving false information because you can never make “infinite” anything in the game. Is this cheating? Does she even need to reveal how her combo works and what it can do? Or do the opponents need to figure it out for themselves? In this case there is a certain way you must tap the monolith and respond to the rings trigger by using other mana sources to get a second untap fir the monolith for 2 and tap it for three after the copy untap to generate an extra colorless mana each time. The opponents might not understand this even after she explains how it actually works. What would be the ruling in this?
It is no cheating. But you need to show exactly how you gain the Mana, i.e. you show one round of the shortcut and that you net one colorless mana evrytime you do it. IF the opponent still has no clue, I would call a judge, as I don´t know how to further explain it.
> Is this cheating? I don't think so - oracle text is derived information, but how cards interact isn't specifically called out as such so it defaults to private. Probably for the best - you could answer wrong and then discover that you missed something while looking at your cards again, and it doesn't make sense to punish someone for that. Best to simply not answer those kinds of questions, though. > Does she even need to reveal how her combo works and what it can do? Yes, of course. You can't shortcut a loop unless you demonstrate it.
@@siosilvar yes. What I meant was does she have to explain how the combo works with the monolith on the stack if asked if she will be able to make “infinite” mana or do the others players need to look at what she’ll been able to do after it hits the board? Can she just say “this is what Basalt Monolith does & you all can look at any of my other permanents on the field”?
@@seanhardner5842 You are never required to give your opponent strategy advice - even in regular REL where oracle text is free information instead of derived
Couldn't you just make it so revealed cards are considered derived information for as long as they stay revealed? Nick could still say he only runs 3 Jaces before Amy names a card and begins searching, but it would stop him from lying to Amy while she is actively searching.
@@seandun7083 Technically correct (the best kind of correct!) but in a 1v1 game all players have seen it. It's like casting bloodbraid elf and having nothing to cascade into, then not offering cut since you didn't "shuffle" (which, funnily enough, I asked the video creator about this one and in comp REL you have to offer cut for a subset of your library "put on the bottom in a random order," so maybe not the best analogy after all )
If I got this right wouldnt this allow you to "finagle/angleshoot" a lot with things like anthems. As far as I understood you could say, Grisslybear is a 2/2 since that is the base P/T even if there is a Glorious Anthem in play.
I suppose you could say, "it's base P/T is 2/2" (though as a casual player I don't agree with angle shooting) But one thing I do like to say is "yet" - "no, my giant Orc Army doesn't have trample . . . yet" whether or not I'm able to give it trample
A lot of these rules also seem to assume that everyone playing this game is able bodied and neurotypical. Is there anything in the rules to accommodate people who may struggle to work out derived information on their own through any kind of disability, and if not, is this something judges often help with anyway if the other player is uncooperative?
At regular REL (almost anything at your local store) there's no such thing as derived information, you can ask your opponent or a judge for help figuring out anything that isn't private. At competitive REL (official tournaments), you're on your own for anything other than oracle text, game rules, and tournament policy.
You'd likely need to speak with the tournament organizer before the games begin, but WotC would be a damn fool not to accomodate someone with disabilities. The backlash would be huge
@@williamdrum9899 Yeah I imagine TOs would often be able to help out in some way, maybe just let opponents know they do need to truthfully answer questions about derived info? Not a huge deal I imagine people are usually happy to help, just wonder if it's in the rules at all.
22:24 If Amy had a City's Blessing status card sitting on the table, and she just didn't remove it while she was sacrificing treasures, then she did nothing wrong, and the ruling should go the other way... right?
There's no reason for her to remove it; city's blessing is permanent. If she got the city's blessing status card out when she got the city's blessing, I'd say that satisfies her requirement to communicate the change in status information just fine (recall that the communication policy includes nonverbal communication too).
It's simply erring on the side of not forcing people to do work for their opponent at a tournament. The ableist part is that judges aren't supposed to help with derived information either and that there's no explicit guidance for approved assistance other than whatever the tournament head says. In practice, everyone will tell you anyway because it's just the polite thing to do (and the required thing to do outside of official tournaments).
5:19 gee, why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel? But seriously, this card design is one of the worst decisions to come out of WoTC in the past few years and it cannot be called out enough. This should be an oversized card or just an art card like the ones that used to come out of set boosters.
The {1} from the mana cost being in a completely different location than the {GW} was what really annoyed me. WotC used to have teams who could veto ideas on the basis of things like brand consistency, usability, or other practical concerns. The Future Sight frames, e.g., were really well thought out even if they were too radically different to catch on at the time. Now, it seems like being different is only thing WotC cares about; the fact that people might have to actually play with (or against) these cards is at best a secondary concern.
If you don’t help your opponent with derived information you’re a jerk. If you take joy from refusing to tell someone how big your goyf is and making them count when you know, why. You’re just slowing the game down for no reason, there is one true state of the game and that shouldn’t be in question. Angle shooting to get a competitive advantage if they happen to miscount is in my opinion poor sportsmanship
