Hi everyone,
an interesting question that came up repeatedly during this seasons modern PPTQs:

AP controls a foreign language Ghost Quarter. He cracks it and says something like “destroy your {whatever-nonbasic-land}”. Both the language of the card and his wording carefully chosen in hope you forget (or just don't know that you're allowed) to search for a basic land. Is he breaking any game rules?
NAP is allowed to ignore the search since it's a “may” but is AP allowed to deny him the choice whether to search by trying to hide what the full effect of the ability is?

The closest scenario I could find is http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/8159/?page=1#post-49483 but I'm unsure whether that applies here.

Edited Christian Genz (June 25, 2015 07:46:38 PM)

Oracle content is derived information in my books, so, while players must never make false statements about Oracle content, they're never obliged to assist their opponent in gathering all the oracle information that may be helpful for them.

I guess this question is about whether the may-part of Ghost Quarter's activated ability falls under free information or derived information. I think it`s the latter, but since free information also has these lines saying “Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.”, I think a case could be made for saying it's free information, so I'd love to hear some other people's thoughts on this.

Edited Jasper König (June 25, 2015 09:38:34 PM)

I am used to see players cracking Ghost Quarter, and touching target land with Ghost Quarter itself, with no verbal interaction whatsoever.
if the player doesn't search, I would not intervene - I wouldn't intervene if a Path to Exile resolved, either.

When a player faces a card he cannot read, the best thing he can do is asking Oracle text to the nearest judge.

That's completely fine and legal, maybe not nice but doesn't matter. When I Path your Wurmcoil, I'll never remind you to search your library, but will stop you putting tokens :)

I agree, only the name of the card is free information. The text of the card is derived information. If a player doesn't know what a card does, can't read the card, and doesn't ask a judge for the Oracle wording, it's his own fault.

The text of any cards are derived information, sure. But doesn't AP have a responsibility to give NAP the choice while resolving his spell or ability? We can say that Ghost Quarter and Path to exile are very well known, so AP could reasonably say “I thought he chose to not search”. But say that AP is playing a less known card like Arcum Dagsson, and just tells NAP “active Arcum, sac your cranial plating”. Is this really OK?

I have had this discussion a number of times, and the way I looked at it was as follows:

If there is zero verbal communication, and a player activates Ghost Quarter, and the opponent does not search, nothing illegal has happened. The search is a “may”, and the player has elected not to do it, knowingly or otherwise.

It seems pretty clear-cut to me when you consider this scenario specifically, however the Flamewake Phoenix scenario listed in the original post is a little more murky.

For me, personally, I'm perfectly happy ruling that this scenario is okay :)

~ Jack x

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

I agree, only the name of the card is free information. The text of the card is derived information. If a player doesn't know what a card does, can't read the card, and doesn't ask a judge for the Oracle wording, it's his own fault.

Though derived information is still required to be answered honestly, but not necessarily completely, yeah? As an example, I was facing an opponent and his Thoughtseize revealed, among other things, a Japanese Fireblast. When he asked what it did, I told him, neglecting to mention that it was an instant (since he didn't ask about that). To the best of my knowledge, that's all right, but had he asked if it was instant or sorcery, a truthful answer is required, yes?

That is perfectly fine, Hank.

However, Hue does raise an interesting question. There is precedent (for example Frost Titan's “counter unless you pay” trigger) that you cannot just assume an opponent's choice during the resolution of something that you control.

So, can AP in the original scenario simply assume that his opponent chose not to search? If so, why could the Frost Titan player not assume that his opponent chose not to pay? Is it simply because one is a trigger and the other isn't?

My point is that asking for derived information is one thing that is clearly covered by policy and is totally fine not to answer or to leave out parts. But I don't think the same is true for things happening right now as under MTR free information:
• Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.
(Free information is information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made by their opponents.)

and a spell resolving definitely falls under current game actions, doesn't it?

Edited Christian Genz (June 25, 2015 11:58:08 PM)

I believe that is correct Sebastian. The controller of a Titan must demonstrate awareness of his trigger, at which point the cost must be paid. If he doesn't do so, it's obvious that he forgot his trigger, not that his opponent forgot to pay for it.

I'm 100% in the boat of the Ghost Quarter scenario being totally fine.

Originally posted by Christian Genz:

My point is that asking for derived information is one thing that is clearly covered by policy and is totally fine not to answer or to leave out parts. But I don't think the same is true for things happening right now as under MTR free information:
• Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.
(Free information is information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made by their opponents.)

and a spell resolving definitely falls under current game actions, doesn't it?

Let try this:
*Johnny casts Snapcaster Mage*
Tammy: “what's that?”
Johnny: “a blue 2/1”
Tammy: “resolves”
Johnny: “flashback to bolt, cast it on you”
Tammy: “juuudge!”

I understand this is fine even if that Mage is on the stack as I believe that “current game actions” clause refers to “what you are doing” like in “I cast this Snapcaster Mage and it's now on the stack” as opposed to “I'm casting this card of which I provide full oracle text”.

Well the remaining text of the Snapcaster is irrelevant when it is cast since it does nothing during resolution of the spell so I think that is quite far from the Ghost Quarter scenario.
Imagine AP playing chinese smallpox without controlling any lands by himself. NAP asks, okay I have no response, what do I have to do? AP says “sac your creature” (because he has vesuva in hand and wants to copy his opponents land afterwards for example).

And to me current game actions clearly involves full ORacle Text of a spell or ability resolving right now (which is completely different from it being on the stack, I fully agree that on the stack it's a matter of future game state which is derived at best but while it is resolving that changes to free information)

Edited Christian Genz (June 26, 2015 12:40:25 AM)

Technically, the Oracle text of a card does not constitute a game action. Game actions are things like playing spells, activating abilities, playing lands and the like. If my opponent asks me “Have you played a land this turn?” I have to tell him the truth. Same as for “How many spells have you played this turn?” since it affects the current game state (Storm count).

I see no problem with the presented scenario, and AP is only being particularly competitive and not-sporting (different from unsporting).

While I don't like it, it's OK - as Claudio pointed out, it's not very Sporting but Competitive behavior is acceptable.

After all, the burden is on the opponent to ask better questions - either so precise & specific that the GQ player has no “wiggle room”, or - much better! - ask a Judge for the Oracle text.

d:^D