Lyle - I think in your example Annie is clearly going to get TE - CPV. The hand is a game zone that always has a finite number of cards in it. Saying “these two” and using sleight of hand to make it appear there are only two cards makes it impossible for Nami to derive the correct information, even if Annie's statement is a partial truth. I would then consult the head judge as to backing up the game to pre-combat and proceeding with investigation to DQ for USC - Cheating. If an investigation here lead to Annie knowing that it is illegal to lie about the number of cards in your hand or use sleight of hand to misrepresent that information, then DQ is applicable.

Back to the original topic, I agree that there is no penalty. The difference here is that while the player told a half truth, the information can still be derived by the opponent picking up the graveyard and looking for themselves. I would talk to the player who lost and explain the difference between free and derived information. Also that at competitive your opponent is not required to completely answer questions regarding derived information and that it is always best to verify the information for yourself. Its possible they incompletely answer your question on accident, by misinterpretation, or through trickery. Either way, its better to derive this information for yourself.

I love this topic! One quick reminder guys and girls, please do not post alternate scenarios. We want the topic to be focused on the question at hand, and the final write up will only be addressing the initial post. Thanks!

Sent from my iPhone

At least do not change the scenario until this is concluded; then you can raise with regional L3s or in a different thread, your variation question.

Andy
________________________________________
From: Benjamin McDole
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 7:58 AM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: Guard Your Words - SILVER (Knowledge Pool Scenarios)

I love this topic! One quick reminder guys and girls, please do not post alternate scenarios. We want the topic to be focused on the question at hand, and the final write up will only be addressing the initial post. Thanks!

Sent from my iPhone

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/28213/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4977/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/foru m/noemail/4977/<http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4977/>

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit

Originally posted by Andrew Heckt:

At least do not change the scenario until this is concluded; then you can raise with regional L3s or in a different thread, your variation question.

Andy
________________________________________
From: Benjamin McDole
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 7:58 AM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: Guard Your Words - SILVER (Knowledge Pool Scenarios)

I love this topic! One quick reminder guys and girls, please do not post alternate scenarios. We want the topic to be focused on the question at hand, and the final write up will only be addressing the initial post. Thanks!

Sent from my iPhone

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/28213/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4977/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/foru m/noemail/4977/<http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4977/>

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit

Sorry, my bad. I thought that since an L3 had posted, the thread had been concluded. Apologies, guys =D

Edited Lyle Waldman (July 15, 2013 12:19:09 AM)

As with all Knowledge Pool Scenarios, our solution will be posted on Tuesday. Feel free to continue discussion!

Originally posted by Lyle Waldman:

Sorry, my bad. I thought that since an L3 had posted, the thread had been concluded.

I love that comment - showing proper respect for our senior judges and their opinions!

In general, when an ‘O’fficial answer is appropriate, it'll come from (in approximate order of likelihood) me, Andy, another Forum Moderator or L4+, another Wizards employee - and, in the case of Knowledge Pool scenarios, someone from the KP team.

Quite often, ‘O’fficial isn't going to happen (corner cases), but L3+ judges will still share their thoughts - and we can all learn from them. So, well done Lyle, attaching the proper significance - almost - to an L3's opinions!

(And now, back to our regular discussion - sorry to derail for the moment.)

Here is how I look at it:
Annie's answer contains no false statements. She has not committed an infraction.


Nami, however has misrepresented derived information when she falsely asserted that the attack would bring her to 1 life. So CPV-warning for Nami and (with the permission of the head judge) a rewind to the point immediately before she began to speak (which should be during the declare attackers step while Nami has priority).

What type of information is what a player's life total will be three steps
in the future, and what does the MTR say about this type of information?

Player life totals are free information.
All characteristics of all objects in public zones that are not defined as free information are part of derived information (so the power of each creature is derived information)
That creatures deal damage equal to their power in the combat damage step of a turn is derived information.

A statement that consists of free and derived information about what turn based actions happen in 2 steps is free.

I would not be okay with a player saying “you'll have to discard 2 cards in your cleanup step” to someone with 7 cards in hand while the stack is empty during the end step.

You can also view it as Nami proposing an illegal shortcut. If she proposing an invalid shortcut then her shortcut can't happen. However, I cannot find any text that explains what happens when someone proposes an invalid shortcut. However, it was covered in the KP scenario involving “Gut shot my Garruk”

Originally posted by William Anderson:

Player life totals are free information.

However, this is not a statement about the current life totals. It is a statement about the future, which is not free information (nor is it derived information). For example, it is not illegal to say “I'm going to win next turn; you should concede”, even if you have no means to do so.

Current player life totals are free information. Future player life totals aren't even a type of information covered in the MTR. Yes, she is making a mistaken assumption that she will go to one, but just by saying that out loud instead of doing the math in her head doesn't absolve her of her play mistake here.

I don't see any basis for a CPV here.

We aren't talking about some far off future life totals. We're discussing the life totals in the game state that Nami is proposing to go to right NOW.

Its still in the future. What if I attacked and before blockers say
“swinging for 5 so you will go to 3” then you declare no blocks and I cast
Giant Growth and now you take 8 and die. Did I commit a CPV?

No, you're interrupting you're proposed shortcut- which you are allowed to do:

“A player may interrupt a tournament shortcut by explaining how he or she is deviating from it or at which point in
the middle he or she wishes to take an action. A player may interrupt their own shortcut in this manner” - MTR 4.2

This is different from proposing a shortcut that is impossible.

Time to get this train back on track.

You are allowed to bluff - lie, in other words - about future game states.

Nami does not commit a CPV infraction by being mistaken about the future game state.