Hello again.

How should we consider the number of energy counters on a player according to the Communication Policy (MTR 4.1)?
Is it considered to be a free information or a derived one?

I feel that it should be treated like poison counters number is (free information then), but I'd like to know if there's already some (O) answer I missed about this topic (I found nothing already existing on this forum). :)

Thanks everyone for your help!

Edited Jacopo Strati (Nov. 16, 2016 12:05:24 PM)

OK, here we go - I'll do my best to keep this clear & simple. (I also deleted all other posts, since they might have confused future readers…)

It's Derived, and can be “derived” from the game state and progress to that point - not always easily! - but, like any other sort of Counter, Energy Counters must be accurately and visibly maintained.

It's not as scary as it might seem, at first; after all, an incorrect representation of Energy Counters would be a Communication Policy Violation.

d:^D

Thanks for your help Uncle Scott. :)

Can a player not represent at all his or her energy counters?
Can he rely on memory, and tell opponent “I will not keep visible track, you are free to do it by yourself”?

(I don't like where this is going …)

Of course, players must announce when they gain energy.

Edited Francesco Scialpi (Nov. 17, 2016 02:50:10 PM)

Originally posted by Francesco Scialpi:

Can he rely on memory, and tell opponent “I will not keep visible track, you are free to do it by yourself”?

Scott Marshall
must be accurately and visibly maintained

Edited Bryan Li (Nov. 17, 2016 02:55:51 PM)

So, it's “derived” in the same way that you show four physical small plastic stones over a Pokemon Energy card and the opponent, well, must count them and know that 1+1+1+1 = 4. Ok.

AP plays a Dynavolt Tower deck.

AP represents 11 energy counters putting two dices on Dynavolt Tower: a white dice, showing 2, and a black dice, showing 1, in order to represent “two Tower activations, 1 spare energy”.

NAP mistakenly reads “21 energies”.

What would you do?

“its only 11 Energy counter.”

move on. get a coffee, some tea. whatever you like.

Also ask AP to represent things in a standard way in the future, or make
sure their opponent is well-aware of the non-standard way they are using.

2016-11-18 14:25 GMT-05:00 Sandro Carlucci <

Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

Also ask AP to represent things in a standard way in the future, or make
sure their opponent is well-aware of the non-standard way they are using.

2016-11-18 14:25 GMT-05:00 Sandro Carlucci <

Good Point. Educate your players how its easier in future plays to get rid of such conflicts. (also if they want to go to a GP in the near future its good to play in a manner everyone understands)

If a player plays a few cards that are also energy sources, but no energy sinks at all, is it acceptable for him to just state “I have no use for energy” and forgo representing the counters?

No. after all, he's entitled to lie about the contents of his deck. So how is his opponent supposed to believe him? The players can't mutually agree to an illegal board state.

Originally posted by Mark Mc Govern:

No. after all, he's entitled to lie about the contents of his deck. So how is his opponent supposed to believe him? The players can't mutually agree to an illegal board state.

I concur. Even were I to believe the player at face value…

(1) The game rules require some representation for the energy counters.
(2) He could always be mistaken about how one of his cards works, only realizing it later. I'd rather not have that come back as an issue.

…and I would stress here that this isn't a question of technicality, but one of functionality, when asking the player to track his energy counters. While it may be the player's detriment to “lose” energy counters, I do not see how a judge can (or should) reasonably look the other way here.

If I believe that the rules and/or policy aspects should be addressed, then I would raise those after the event with the appropriate people. (Such as with the “scry shortcut”.)

Originally posted by Christian Harms:

If a player plays a few cards that are also energy sources, but no energy sinks at all, is it acceptable for him to just state “I have no use for energy” and forgo representing the counters?

Maybe next expansion will contain cards that care about opponent having some energy:
- “if opponent has 2 or more energy counters, this creature gets +1/+1”
- “counter target spell unless its controller pays 3 energy”

You may never know …

EDIT: it's similar to Snow lands. We ask players to list them, even if their deck doesn't care at all about Snow mana or Snow permanents. I can think of two reasons for this:
1) Bluff value. Your opponent can never be sure you really haven't use for that.
2) Opponent resolves Phyrexian Ironfoot, and player steals it. All of a sudden, having access to snow mana becomes relevant…

Edited Francesco Scialpi (Nov. 20, 2016 02:19:22 AM)