Anything illegal in the following plays?

[Nonex]

I'm just curious about the following ways to use the rules in your favor. Not that I plan on using them, but it would be nice to know how it works anyway.

Case I: My opponent controls 2 Noble Hierarch and I cast Pithing Needle. I know it's pointless to name "Noble Hierarch" since they would be unaffected, but at the point of resolving Needle I ask my opponent what would happen if I named Hierarch. He/She says they couldn't be tapped for mana. I name "Noble Hierarch".

1- Is anything illegal up to this point?
2- What would happen if a judge pointed out that they are mana abilities (assuming I already named)?
3- In a highly unlikely continuation, what would happen then if...
a) I told my opponent that I had asked that question to trick him/her into thinking Hierarchs couldn't produce mana?
b) Instead my opponent told me that he/she had tricked me into wasting that Needle, and then I called a judge for cheating?

Case II: I'm playing against Dredge and cast Engineered Plague. I name "Zombie". My opponent has 3 Ichorids in his/her graveyard but doesn't reanimate them because he/she thinks they are Zombies. I don't say anything and manage to win the game thanks to that (otherwise I would have lost).

1- Should I have told something?
2- If I tell my opponent after the round that he/she could have won because Ichorids are Horrors, could he/she accuse me for something for not having told him/her earlier?

Case III: I control a Mother of Runes (no summoning sickness) and a Tarmogoyf, both untapped. My opponent attacks with Knight of the Reliquary. Still in the declare attackers step, I activate the Mother on my Tarmogoyf. My opponent asks which color I choose, thinking it's chosen on announcement. I choose white. My opponent says "In response I Swords to Plowshares your Tarmgooyf" and I answer "Since the color is chosen on resolution and you asked for it, it means the ability has resolved. Tarmogoyf has protection from white now, you can't Swords it".

Is this okay, or I should have told my opponent that the color is chosen on resolution?

Case IV: I cast Tarmogoyf. I usually calculate its P/T whenever is necessary so I don't use anything to remember how big or small it is. My opponent asks if he/she can put a dice next to it to keep track of its P/T to make things easier for him/her. I accept it.

1- Are we both responsible for keeping the dice updated, or is it only my opponent?
2- If only my opponent must care about the dice and Tarmogoyf gets bigger without he/she noticing it, is it legal for me to attack or block and wait until the combat damage step to point out its current P/T?

Case V: I'm playing Enchantress. My opponent knows it and preemptively casts a first turn Engineered Plague naming "Enchantress". I know that all Enchantresses are currently Human Druids and that the creature type Enchantress no longer exists, while my opponent obviously doesn't.

1- Can I purposely let Engineered Plague name a nonexistent creature type in this situation?
2- Assuming the previous question is affirmative, I cast Argothian Enchantress, then tell my opponent she doesn't die because she's not an Enchantress anymore. How could this situation end if a judge gets involved?

[Nightmare]

I understand you guys are trying to help, but these are confusing issues and subtle questions. If your answer is going to contain the following:

"I'm not a judge, but..."
"Probably"
"Maybe"
"I think"

Then you're better off not answering, and avoiding confusing the issue even more. Again, I appreciate the enthusiasm, but it isn't really helping as much as you'd like. If it's all the same, let's hear what one of our slew of judge members has to say on the issue.

[Malakai]

Case I: My opponent controls 2 Noble Hierarch and I cast Pithing Needle. I know it's pointless to name "Noble Hierarch" since they would be unaffected, but at the point of resolving Needle I ask my opponent what would happen if I named Hierarch. He/She says they couldn't be tapped for mana. I name "Noble Hierarch".

1- Is anything illegal up to this point?
No. The justification according to the MTR is "Players are under no obligation to assist their opponents in playing the game"

2- What would happen if a judge pointed out that they are mana abilities (assuming I already named)? A judge should not do this, as this is pointing out derived information to the opponent. Derived information should be given out only upon request. This only applies at REL above Regular; at Regular REL derived information is treated as free information, so the judge is fine in giving this out.


3- In a highly unlikely continuation, what would happen then if...
a) I told my opponent that I had asked that question to trick him/her into thinking Hierarchs couldn't produce mana?
Nothing would happen. The trick is fine; however, telling your opponent that they cannot tap for mana when you know that they can is Cheating - Fraud.

b) Instead my opponent told me that he/she had tricked me into wasting that Needle, and then I called a judge for cheating?

The key to both 3a and 3b is that "Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly." The rules interactions here are derived information (or free at Regular REL). As such, your opponent is guilty of Cheating - Fraud in this situation.



Case II: I'm playing against Dredge and cast Engineered Plague. I name "Zombie". My opponent has 3 Ichorids in his/her graveyard but doesn't reanimate them because he/she thinks they are Zombies. I don't say anything and manage to win the game thanks to that (otherwise I would have lost).
1- Should I have told something?
No, you are not required to provide derived (i.e. rules) information. Furthermore, cards are considered to have their Oracle text printed on them (which is why players can always ask judges for the current oracle text of cards).

2- If I tell my opponent after the round that he/she could have won because Ichorids are Horrors, could he/she accuse me for something for not having told him/her earlier?
They could accuse you, obviously, but you are guilty of anything. However, if your opponent had e.g. reanimated the Ichorids and then placed them back into his/her graveyard (e.g. to activate Bridges), you would be required to stop him/her from doing this, or call a judge. Failing to do so when you know that the Ichorids don't die is Cheating.


Case III: I control a Mother of Runes (no summoning sickness) and a Tarmogoyf, both untapped. My opponent attacks with Knight of the Reliquary. Still in the declare attackers step, I activate the Mother on my Tarmogoyf. My opponent asks which color I choose, thinking it's chosen on announcement. I choose white. My opponent says "In response I Swords to Plowshares your Tarmgooyf" and I answer "Since the color is chosen on resolution and you asked for it, it means the ability has resolved. Tarmogoyf has protection from white now, you can't Swords it".

Is this okay, or I should have told my opponent that the color is chosen on resolution?
Any judge will rule that your opponent's question is a shortcut indicating that the ability is resolving. As such, this is fine. As per the second part, you do not need to provide derived information to your opponent.

From the MTR: "If a player casts a spell or activates an ability and announces choices for it that are not normally made until resolution, the player must adhere to those choices unless an opponent responds to that spell or ability. If an opponent inquires about choices made during resolution, that player is assumed to be passing priority and allowing that spell or ability to resolve."


Case IV: I cast Tarmogoyf. I usually calculate its P/T whenever is necessary so I don't use anything to remember how big or small it is. My opponent asks if he/she can put a dice next to it to keep track of its P/T to make things easier for him/her. I accept it.

1- Are we both responsible for keeping the dice updated, or is it only my opponent?
"Derived information is information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine." You are not required to update the die. However, if at any point you do update the die, a judge may or may not rule that you were both using it to represent the game-state. The penalty here would be Failure to Maintain Game State, for both of you. Keep in mind that you agreeing to your opponent's request may be taken as an implicit agreement to also use the die. In this situation I highly recommend informing your opponent that you consider the die to be part of his notes, and not a representation of the game-state.

2- If only my opponent must care about the dice and Tarmogoyf gets bigger without he/she noticing it, is it legal for me to attack or block and wait until the combat damage step to point out its current P/T? If a judge believes that you at some point you agreed to update the die, either implicitly or explicitly, and that during that at this point you intentionally refrained from updating it in order to gain an advantage, this would be considered Cheating - Fraud. The situation becomes more clear if your opponent is the one who intentionally ceases to update the p/t die.

Keep in mind, however, that the power/toughness of Tarmogoyf is not determined by +1/+1 counters. The number of counters on a creature, e.g. Sphinx of Magosi, is part of the game state and is the responsibility of both players.


Case V: I'm playing Enchantress. My opponent knows it and preemptively casts a first turn Engineered Plague naming "Enchantress". I know that all Enchantresses are currently Human Druids and that the creature type Enchantress no longer exists, while my opponent obviously doesn't.

1- Can I purposely let Engineered Plague name a nonexistent creature type in this situation?
No. This is Cheating - Fraud, as you are intentionally misrepresenting the game state, i.e. the rules. Players must name existing types with cards that require them to name a creature type.

2- Assuming the previous question is affirmative, I cast Argothian Enchantress, then tell my opponent she doesn't die because she's not an Enchantress anymore. How could this situation end if a judge gets involved?
If you get this far, the judge will discover the original fraud.

[Anusien]

"Derived information is information to which all players are entitled access, but opponents are not obliged to assist in determining and may require some skill or calculation to determine." You are not required to update the die. However, if at any point you do update the die, a judge may or may not rule that you were both using it to represent the game-state. The penalty here would be Failure to Maintain Game State, for both of you. Keep in mind that you agreeing to your opponent's request may be taken as an implicit agreement to also use the die. In this situation I highly recommend informing your opponent that you consider the die to be part of his notes, and not a representation of the game-state.
If a judge believes that you at some point you agreed to update the die, either implicitly or explicitly, and that during that at this point you intentionally refrained from updating it in order to gain an advantage, this would be considered Cheating - Fraud. The situation becomes more clear if your opponent is the one who intentionally ceases to update the p/t die.

Keep in mind, however, that the power/toughness of Tarmogoyf is not determined by +1/+1 counters. The number of counters on a creature, e.g. Sphinx of Magosi, is part of the game state and is the responsibility of both players.
This is not strictly true. First off, there's no "Failure to Maintain Game State, for both of you". It's an infraction that always accompanies another Game Rules Violation.

Also, I can't imagine a judge ever ruling that you made some implicit agreement to keep track of Tarmogoyf's power and toughness correctly. Dice on Tarmogoyf have long been considered notes, and therefore neither player has an obligation to keep the dice correct. If a player asks, you have to be honest, but you don't have to correct the dice when you notice they're wrong.
Even if you make some sort of agreement to continually update the dice, it doesn't matter if you stop doing it. Because they're notes and therefore Hidden Information, you're not under an obligation to be truthful about future statements like "I will update Tarmogoyf's dice".

Now, you can't intentionally misrepresent the creature's power and toughness. While the dice are considered notes and Private Information, the creature's P/T itself is Derived Information, meaning you don't have to be completely forthcoming, but you can't lie. I would tread on the side of caution here.

[Malakai]

Level 2 > Level 1. I figured there'd be some established protocol for this. I probably should have just waited for someone to chime in, but I decided to tell him to err on the side of caution.

[Anusien]

Judge level isn't the only criteria, or even the most important one. However, every reasonable discussion on the Tarmogoyf question ends up with "Dice on Goyf = Notes". I happened to go ask one of the policy experts on the "agreement to keep Tarmogoyf up to date", the answer was two-fold: "It's not Fraud, and don't put a die on Tarmogoyf."

Also, let me stress to anyone reading this thread and thinking of pulling shenanigans. Don't. You may pull off a massive mind trick. But you may accidentally step over the line to Fraud, and cause yourself a swift exit from the event.

Also, to protect yourself from shenanigans, don't trust the counters on Tarmogoyf, and don't let your opponent put counters on it.

[cdr]

I'm just curious about the following ways to use the rules in your favor. Not that I plan on using them, but it would be nice to know how it works anyway.

Ick. You'll want to read the Player Communication section of the Tournament Rules (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dci/doccenter/home). Not everything is in there though (or can be), since you touch on some fine points of communication policy. Even judges might disagree about the answers to some things.

1) Consensus seems to be that you are not required to correct mistaken statements by your opponent unless they are about Free information or would break a rule / create an illegal gamestate. The effect of Pithing Needle on Noble Hierarch is Derived information (card text and/or rules).

You should technically call a judge in such a case, since mistakenly representing Free or Derived information incorrectly is a Player Communication Violation infraction. Deliberately representing Free or Derived information incorrectly is Cheating - Fraud.

- A judge would not normally point random things out. If a judge did, then your jig would be up.
- Again, deliberately misrepresenting Free or Derived information = Fraud.

2) If your opponent doesn't say anything, you don't know why he's doing whatever he's doing, so you certainly can't correct him. Even if he did say something verbally, you don't have to - creature types are derived information.

3) Asking about choices that happen on resolution is a codified shortcut in the Tournament Rules. If you ask, you are letting the spell or ability resolve.

4) It is not your responsibility to keep your opponent's dice correct - and in fact, he does not have a responsibility either. When dice are used for "virtual tracking" (not representing actual existent objects like counters), they are considered notes, which are private and do not have to be accurate.
As above, you have to correct if Free information is stated incorrectly or if a rule will be broken.

5) You cannot name a non-existent creature type - that is illegal. You must name an existing creature type.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Questions:

Free information includes:
• Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.
• The name of any object in a public zone.
• The physical status (tapped/flipped) and current zone of any object.
• Player life totals and the game score of the current match.

Do the notes of life totals have to be in a visible area? If I choose to take life total notes and leave the paper behind my deckbox but still answer questions whenever the opponent asks is that fine?



Derived information includes:
• The number of any type of objects present in any game zone.
• All characteristics of objects in public zones that are not defined as free information.
• Game Rules, Tournament Policy, Oracle content and any other official information pertaining to the current tournament. Cards are considered to have their Oracle text printed on them.


Does this mean that number of cards in hand is derived information, and you don't have to answer any questions about it?

The same goes for cards in library.



5) You cannot name a non-existent creature type - that is illegal. You must name an existing creature type.
There are roughly 500 creature types. If he didn't know that the "Enchantress" type was completely erased but knew only that Argothian is no longer one, is it his fault?

[freakish777]

For clarification, in the Needle scenario, if you played Pithing Needle naming Noble Heirarch (and had not asked your opponent anything beforehand), and your opponent asks "So what does that mean" or "Does that mean I can't tap them for mana?" you could simply respond with "I'll let you figure that out for yourself," since it's derived information correct?

[cdr]

Questions:

Do the notes of life totals have to be in a visible area? If I choose to take life total notes and leave the paper behind my deckbox but still answer questions whenever the opponent asks is that fine?

Here's the first part of MTR 2.9, Taking Notes:

Players are allowed to take written notes during a match and may refer to those notes while that match is in progress. At the beginning of a match, each player’s note sheet must be empty and must remain visible throughout the match. Players do not have to explain or reveal notes to other players. Judges may ask to see a player’s notes and/or request that the player explain his or her notes. Players may not refer to outside notes during games. This includes notes from previous matches.

Anything you write is private - you don't have to explain it, nor does it even have to be correct, but it does have to remain visible. You have to be able to answer questions about Free information, like life totals.


Does this mean that number of cards in hand is derived information, and you don't have to answer any questions about it?

The same goes for cards in library.

You don't have to answer, but you do have to allow your opponent to count it himself.


There are roughly 500 creature types. If he didn't know that the "Enchantress" type was completely erased but knew only that Argothian is no longer one, is it his fault?

If by "he" you mean the opponent of the person with the Plague - he would only get a Failure to Maintain warning (which is only for tracking and doesn't upgrade) since it's the primary responsibility of the player playing the Plague. Assuming the error is caught, of course.


For clarification, in the Needle scenario, if you played Pithing Needle naming Noble Heirarch (and had not asked your opponent anything beforehand), and your opponent asks "So what does that mean" or "Does that mean I can't tap them for mana?" you could simply respond with "I'll let you figure that out for yourself," since it's derived information correct?

The best answer would be "ask a judge", but "I don't have to tell you that" is legal.

[Nonex]

Thanks a lot to everyone on this thread, really. Tournament Rules have always been like an unsolvable puzzle to me, and I never really know when omitting information is okay and when an infraction. Thanks for the link to the Rules themselves, too.

Regarding the answers to my previous questions, they are all pretty clear, but I don't fully understand the Pithing Needle - Noble Hierarch case. To my understanding, my opponent is mistakenly representing derived information when he/she says that Noble Hierarch couldn't produce mana, but it's still fine if I, knowing the truth, cast Pithing Needle on them. Is that so? Does that mean that if the game proceeds as normal without anyone interfering and I end up winning thanks to the Hierarches not being tapped for mana, nothing abnormal happens?

Also, about the Zombie - Horror example, I understand that the creature types are derived information, but at regular tournaments derived information is treated as free. Does that mean that in this case, if it was a regular tournament, I should tell my opponent that Ichorids don't die under Plague?

I have some more questions as well:

Case VI: How do the Future Sight Pacts definitely work? I mean, are "Pay X. If you don't, you lose the game" and "You lose the game unless you pay X" the same from a judge's perspective? Do I have to remind my opponent that he/she must pay if I see he/she is directly going to draw a card? Why, or why not?

Case VII: This actually happened to me during the GP Madrid. I'm playing against a monoblack deck. I cast Veteran Explorer. My opponent doesn't know it and can't read it either. I explain the card the best I can, and he seems to understand (I'm Spanish, the card is in Spanish, he's Italian and our English are mediocre at best). I sacrifice the Explorer to Greater Gargadon and start searching. I notice he doesn't. Given that he plays a mono-Swamps deck and has a Nantuko Shade on the battlefield, I think he has no reason not to search so he must have misunderstood me. I explain the card again stressing that the search is optional but affects both. He then fully understands the card, and thankful for the explanation, starts searching as well. Someone playing next to me sees it all and tells me that being that an optional action, I could have just shut up.

Was the spectator right?

Case VIII: This is just to see if I understand derived information correctly. I cast a Chinese Vendilion Clique. My opponent doesn't know it and can't read Chinese, so I explain everything it has and does, but I intentionally don't say anything about the flying part.

1- We could say that being that derived information, I can intentionally omit things as long as I don't lie, since my opponent can always call a judge to know the current Oracle text. However, being the lack of information intentional to gain an advantage (by making my opponent think he/she can block Vendilion Clique with creatures that actually can't), it could also be a Fraud. Which option is correct?

2- My opponent looks at the card, and by looking at the picture, he/she thinks it should fly, so he/she asks me if the Clique also has flying. I can't respond "no", but I can respond either "yes" or "you should call a judge".
a) Correct?
b) Can I just respond "I think yes/not, but I'm not sure"?

[cdr]

To my understanding, my opponent is mistakenly representing derived information when he/she says that Noble Hierarch couldn't produce mana, but it's still fine if I, knowing the truth, cast Pithing Needle on them. Is that so? Does that mean that if the game proceeds as normal without anyone interfering and I end up winning thanks to the Hierarches not being tapped for mana, nothing abnormal happens?

As before, per policy, you don't have to correct mistaken statements about derived information even though it's technically an infraction. Free/derived is where the line is drawn. This could change in the future.


Also, about the Zombie - Horror example, I understand that the creature types are derived information, but at regular tournaments derived information is treated as free. Does that mean that in this case, if it was a regular tournament, I should tell my opponent that Ichorids don't die under Plague?

If your opponent doesn't say anything, there's nothing to correct. You're very right to point out that derived is the same as free at Regular REL, so if he actually said something, you would have to correct him.


How do the Future Sight Pacts definitely work? I mean, are "Pay X. If you don't, you lose the game" and "You lose the game unless you pay X" the same from a judge's perspective? Do I have to remind my opponent that he/she must pay if I see he/she is directly going to draw a card? Why, or why not?

See the Missed Trigger section in the IPG. Those wordings are identical - it's a trigger with a default action. If a trigger with a default action is missed, the default action is applied immediately.

You can't know that your opponent missed the trigger until he moves onto the next part of the turn, which happens to be marked by drawing a card. You do have to stop him at that point, but you don't have to and can't reasonably be expected to stop him before he draws.


This actually happened to me during the GP Madrid. I'm playing against a monoblack deck. I cast Veteran Explorer. My opponent doesn't know it and can't read it either. I explain the card the best I can, and he seems to understand (I'm Spanish, the card is in Spanish, he's Italian and our English are mediocre at best). I sacrifice the Explorer to Greater Gargadon and start searching. I notice he doesn't. Given that he plays a mono-Swamps deck and has a Nantuko Shade on the battlefield, I think he has no reason not to search so he must have misunderstood me. I explain the card again stressing that the search is optional but affects both. He then fully understands the card, and thankful for the explanation, starts searching as well. Someone playing next to me sees it all and tells me that being that an optional action, I could have just shut up.

Was the spectator right?

The spectator was wrong to say anything to you about gameplay while you were playing a match - that's Outside Assistance.

That aside, unless asked specifically asked for the full/Oracle text of a card, you are not responsible for providing it. Your opponent's continued misunderstanding was his own fault unless he asked for the full Italian text. The language barrier does throw a wrench in things though, so it's probably a good idea to err on the side of caution. In any case, you were almost certainly not required to correct him when he didn't search.

When asked a non-specific question, as long as you don't say anything false, you can say as little as you like. In fact, if asked a non-specific question like "What does that do?", you can answer "It lets me get two land when it dies", which is incomplete but still true.


This is just to see if I understand derived information correctly. I cast a Chinese Vendilion Clique. My opponent doesn't know it and can't read Chinese, so I explain everything it has and does, but I intentionally don't say anything about the flying part.

1- We could say that being that derived information, I can intentionally omit things as long as I don't lie, since my opponent can always call a judge to know the current Oracle text. However, being the lack of information intentional to gain an advantage (by making my opponent think he/she can block Vendilion Clique with creatures that actually can't), it could also be a Fraud. Which option is correct?

2- My opponent looks at the card, and by looking at the picture, he/she thinks it should fly, so he/she asks me if the Clique also has flying. I can't respond "no", but I can respond either "yes" or "you should call a judge". Correct? Can I just respond "I think yes/not, but I'm not sure"?

If your opponent asks a non-specific question, you may omit information as long as what you do say is true (as above). If he asks for the full/Oracle text you have to answer completely or tell him to call a judge. If he asks if it has flying, you have to answer or call a judge. If you're not sure, don't answer. Even a qualified answer is still a representation, and you've got a Player Communication Violation if you're wrong.