I was going to follow up to the Niv-Mizzet thread, but it's already been closed. I'd like some clarification about where the line for something being a PCV is. I hope this is the right forum, it's the only one I can see suitable for policy questions.

In the previous thread a player drew from Niv-Mizzet after it was blocked and didn't deal damage to the player. The follow-up scenario was:

If the active player had said “Draw trigger?”, and the opponent said, “Yup”. Then they realized the mistake, does this turn it into a GRV?

Scott posted this:

Second example is not PCV. PCV is an unintentional violation of the Player Communication policy, in Section 4 of the MTR. I know I've seen some good explanations, but my cache of links and memory of resources is failing me; if I find something, I'll add it here, later

Can someone explain why this is not a PCV? While a trigger on the stack is not a visible object and so not free information, it is an object in a public zone and so the number of them and their characteristics is Derived information (MTR4.1) The definition of PCV says “Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly” (IPG3.7). Why is stating the existence of a trigger than never happened not incorrectly representing the number of objects on the stack and/or their characteristics?

The problem is that they are actually accurately representing the stack in that case, they just put something on the stack they weren't supposed to. A simpler example of this would be if your opponent played a Call of the Conclave and put 2 Centaur tokens on the battlefield. If you ask your opponent how many creatures they have, the answer “Two” would NOT be a PCV because that is how the board state is (even though it shouldn't be). The Niv-Mizzet example is a GRV for putting a trigger on the stack that never triggered.

PCV deals exclusively with problems in communication, typically involving
incorrect information being given. But in this case there was no problem in
communication. He didn't miscommunicate the trigger, he actually played and
resolved the trigger. He said exactly what was happening, even though it
wasn't *supposed* to be happening.

So the error was not in communication, it was in his actions. That is why
it couldn't possibly be a PCV.

Nick Short
L2, Chicago, IL, USA

On Tue Jan 22 18:42, Nick Short wrote:
> PCV deals exclusively with problems in communication, typically involving
> incorrect information being given. But in this case there was no problem in
> communication. He didn't miscommunicate the trigger, he actually played and
> resolved the trigger. He said exactly what was happening, even though it
> wasn't *supposed* to be happening.
>
> So the error was not in communication, it was in his actions. That is why
> it couldn't possibly be a PCV.

This is a reasonable explanation. However, I still don't see why the sections I
quoted don't apply. He is clearly misrepresenting the number of objects in a
zone. Alternatively, if you think he has incorrectly placed an object on the
stack, and so he's correctly representing the number of object there, but due
to a GRV there is an additional object there, surely that GRV also would cause
resolving it not to be DEC?

Matt

Scott did say it is likely just a Drawing Extra Cards with added complications but it depends on the situation, so he didn't say it 100% isn't a GRV or 100% is DEC but that it would depend on many different factors. All he said was it isn't a PCV.

It all comes down to how you view the statement “trigger” means, does it mean “I'm placing this ability on the stack”, “I have this ability on the stack”, “I am drawing this card due to this” or something entirely different

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

This is a reasonable explanation. However, I still don't see why the sections I quoted don't apply. He is clearly misrepresenting the number of objects in a zone.

I think you may be reading the player's statement to closely. Consider what the player is really saying here: Is he discussing actual information about a game zone? Or is he simply asking if he can resolve the nonexistent trigger?

Don't think to hard about the player's words, as the player's meaning or intent is hardly about communicating information. He's asking if the opponent has a response before he resolves the trigger. And that's reasonable, since a cautious player may be likely to ask for confirmation before proceeding with an action. (Especially not to give away too much about another action that's also about to happen.)

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

Alternatively, if you think he has incorrectly placed an object on the stack, and so he's correctly representing the number of object there, but due to a GRV there is an additional object there, surely that GRV also would cause resolving it not to be DEC?

I think this is where you get into some grey areas of what actually happens, where you may have to make a judgment about the situation. While the MIPG is a pretty good document when it comes to the majority of situations, there are plenty that don't fit into exact boxes like are outlined with the various examples. In that case, when the definition and/or examples don't seem to work, go to the philosophy section of the infraction and read about what it means.

With PCV, we want clear communication from the players. Genuine confusion is possible, but we punish when players actually violate the requirements set in MTR 4.1, not just communicate poorly. So, in this situation, we do have some pretty clear communication; confirmation from the player about an action he wants to take before actually taking it. In an ideal situation, the opponent could point out there isn't a trigger… But, as Scott said, there's a lot of stuff that goes on that doesn't easily lend itself to the opponent realizing what is going on. (The opponent might not understand Niv-Mizzet, or might think it's an entirely different card allowing the trigger.)

In most cases, you are going to see PCV apply to very specific requests for information before an action takes place: How many cards in hand? Does that creature have flying? What card did you name for Meddling Mage? All of these are specific requests for information about what is currently happening in the game, and don't involve an actual action taking place. It's just an exchange of information.

For example, consider the following: I'm playing you. You attack with Abbey Griffin that is enchanted by your Ethereal Armor, which is your only enchantment. I have Tribute to Hunger in hand, so I ask you the toughness of the creature. You hand me both cards, and I do the math, thinking it's only 2/2 (misunderstanding that Ethereal Armor counts itself). So, when I use Tribute to Hunger and you sacrifice the creature, I change my life total by 2 and you change your own sheet to indicate my life total changed by 3. The next turn, I notice the discrepancy. Was this a PCV or a GRV? (Edit: And you may presume you're not trying to game my mistake in changing my own life total, you couldn't read my hand writing clearly enough to know it was +2 rather than +3.)

Edited Brian Schenck (Jan. 23, 2013 11:27:30 AM)

On Wed Jan 23 14:24, Brian Schenck wrote:
> For example, consider the following: I'm playing you. You attack with Abbey Griffin that is enchanted by your Ethereal Armor, which is your only enchantment. I have Tribute to Hunger in hand, so I ask you the toughness of the creature. You hand me both cards, and I do the math, thinking it's only 2/2 (misunderstanding that Ethereal Armor counts itself). So, when I use Tribute to Hunger and you sacrifice the creature, I change my life total by 2 and you change your own sheet to indicate my life total changed by 3. The next turn, I notice the discrepancy. Was this a PCV or a GRV?

Hmm, but here noone is saying anything, there's no communication, the other player is saying nothing about derived information, letting you count (or miscount) yourself, which is fine (or, since it involve life totals, possible Cheating: Fraud).

In the OP an explicit incorrect statement was made about game objects, which in at least some other cases is a PCV.

Matt

But if the trigger never exists, meaning its becomes an in game object, can you be making an incorrect statement about it?

Edited Gareth Tanner (Jan. 24, 2013 07:36:38 AM)

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

Hmm, but here noone is saying anything, there's no communication, the other player is saying nothing about derived information, letting you count (or miscount) yourself, which is fine (or, since it involve life totals, possible Cheating: Fraud).

Then consider the above scenario again: What would make that scenario specifically a PCV versus a GRV? What statements would you have to make that makes a PCV the issue, versus strictly a GRV?

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

In the OP an explicit incorrect statement was made about game objects, which in at least some other cases is a PCV.

Sure, and in “some other cases” it would be a PCV if the player directly answered a question about free information or derived information incorrectly. Or even made a statement about derived information like what a card does. But, again, is the player making a “statement about the trigger” or just asking if his opponent has a response?

Furthermore, keep in mind that MTR 4.1 doesn't say “incorrect statement made about game objects”. It talks about very specific things regarding objects, such as the name of an object or the number of objects, or even the text of the object. Primarily to differentiate between free information and derived information in how players can treat that information. Whether the simple presense or absense of a trigger on the stack is questionable as to whether it is specifically free information or derived information. And it may depend entirely on what communication passes between both players.

But asking whether the opponent has a response is not the same as making a statement about a trigger on the stack (existing or otherwise). And in the OP's scenario, this was a question about a response. Trying to pigeon hole the scenario into a PCV is a stretch, at best. Such scenarios were not meant to count ss a PCV.

On Thu Jan 24 14:10, Brian Schenck wrote:
>

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

Hmm, but here noone is saying anything, there's no communication, the other player is saying nothing about derived information, letting you count (or miscount) yourself, which is fine (or, since it involve life totals, possible Cheating: Fraud).

>
> Then consider the above scenario again: What would make that scenario specifically a PCV versus a GRV? What statements would you have to make that makes a PCV the issue, versus strictly a GRV?

Well, if he had looked at it and said “2 toughness”

>

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

In the OP an explicit incorrect statement was made about game objects, which in at least some other cases is a PCV.

>
> Sure, and in “some other cases” it would be a PCV if the player directly answered a question about free information or derived information incorrectly. Or even made a statement about derived information like what a card does. But, again, is the player making a “statement about the trigger” or just asking if his opponent has a response?
>
> Furthermore, keep in mind that MTR 4.1 doesn't say “incorrect statement made about game objects”. It talks about very specific things regarding objects, such as the name of an object or the number of objects, or even the text of the object. Primarily to differentiate between free information and derived information in how players can treat that information. Whether the simple presense or absense of a trigger on the stack is questionable as to whether it is specifically free information or derived information. And it may depend entirely on what communication passes between both players.
>
> But asking whether the opponent has a response is not the same as making a statement about a trigger on the stack (existing or otherwise). And in the OP's scenario, this was a question about a response. Trying to pigeon hole the scenario into a PCV is a stretch, at best. Such scenarios were not meant to count ss a PCV.

I definitely think that saying “do you have a response to this trigger”
implicitly is a statement that the trigger exists and about some of its
characteristics. We would certainly DQ someone for making a statement that
implied an untrue gamestate deliberately to mislead. Further more, this is
exactly a case where an opponent can know that I'm making an error, but then
wait for me to commit a more serious error before pointing it out, which is the
whole point of the DEC exception for existing GRVs and PCVs.

Matt

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

Well, if he had looked at it and said “2 toughness”

So, then we have an explicit answer regarding the question the player was asked.

In the original scenario, is that the case?

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

I definitely think that saying “do you have a response to this trigger” implicitly is a statement that the trigger exists and about some of its characteristics.

Wait, so when a player makes an “implicit statement” about the existence of an object or its characteristics, he's somehow violated the Player Communication policy per MTR 4.1? So, in a situation where I leave out part of what an ability does (implicitly suggesting that is all it does), I've committed a PCV?

Originally posted by Matthew Johnson:

We would certainly DQ someone for making a statement that implied an untrue gamestate deliberately to mislead. Further more, this is exactly a case where an opponent can know that I'm making an error, but then wait for me to commit a more serious error before pointing it out, which is the whole point of the DEC exception for existing GRVs and PCVs.

Well, you have to demonstrate that the opponent knew that the player was referring to a nonexistent Niv-Mizzet trigger as opposed to some other trigger and/or even knowledge about what events the ability triggers upon.

And that still presumes that “Trigger?” means more than “Do you have a response before I resolve this trigger?” I would agree that is within the realm of possibility, but I think it's pretty unlikely. And trying to infer a PCV has taken place because of something a player “implies” is a real slippery slope.