Norman played Omnath, Locus of Rage and passed his turn. Norman has one card left in his hand.

Alex untaps, and while considering his options, wants to know if Norman played a land the previous turn (the 7th, to cast Omnath, Locus of Rage), or if he already had 7 lands.

For Alex, the fact whether or not Norman played a land matters: If Norman didn't play a land, it's safe to assume Norman has no land in his hand. He would've played the land to trigger Omnath, Locus of Rage right away. If norman did play a land, it's definitely possible that there's another land in Norman's hand. This land may trigger Omnath, Locus of Rage next turn and produce a 5/5 creature.
In short: If Norman didn't play a land, it's less likely that there will be an Omnath, Locus of Rage - trigger next turn for Alex to play around.

He asks Norman “Did you play a land in your most recent turn?”

If Norman answers correctly, there won't ever be a problem.

But there's some options if Norman answers incorrectly
Assuming Norman did play a land:
Norman answers “No, I didn't”, knowing he actually did play a land. (A lie)
Norman answers “No, I didn't”, confusing his own recent play. (Just

Assuming Norman didn't play a land:
Norman answers “Yes, I did.”, knowing he didn't really play a land. (A lie)
Norman answers “Yes, I did.”, confusing his own recent play.


The ruling on this dramatically depends on what type of information Alex seeks/Norman provides here:
Free Information (can't lie, can't ommit) / Derived Information (can't lie, can ommit) / Private Information (can lie)

By the definitions about these categories of information from the MTR, it's clear the type of information is not derived information.
It could be free information as “Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.”. If it's not this, then it's automatically private information.

Now my question to you: What type of information is seeked/provided here? Is Norman allowed to lie about having played a land or not?

You're in the correct part of policy, and I believe your analysis is spot
on. The question is whether this past game action still affects the game
state - or better framed, as a question of policy, “how does a judge
determine whether a past game action still affects the game state?”

I don't have an answer that's based on policy, but I'm leaning towards “no”
for this particular situation (that is, this is private information). This
is because this no longer affects the game state - it did during Norman's
turn, because it affected whether Norman was still allowed to play a land.
However, your italicized explanation seems to be based on conjecture on
Alex's part, I'm not inclined to use that high level strategic thinking to
attach the “free information” label.

Of course, if it was a judge and not Alex asking this question, I would
expect Norman to answer correctly and to the full extent of his knowledge,
away from the table if he feels it necessary.

Let me try to draw a parallel - what if on Alex's previous turn, he had
Thoughtsiezed Norman, he didn't see the Omnath, and he had Norman discard
some irrelevant card, but Alex had not written down the contents of
Norman's hand. Alex knows that Norman topdecked Omnath, but doesn't
remember if there were any lands in Norman's hand when he Thoughtsiezed
Alex. This fact would clearly be considered private information, even
though the same argument could be made that it was a detail of a past game
action, and it could affect Alex's current strategic thinking - the “free
information” label is no longer attached to that information. I'd argue
that the same is true here for the same reason - that information lost its
direct relevance to the visible game state, and is no longer free.

I'm having some difficulty formulating a test that clarifies the intent
here - certainly I think the following would be free information:
* Details of actions that impact the current characteristics or zone of any
currently or previously visible object (how did that die, or where did that
clique go)
* Details of actions that impact whether a game action is currently legal
(can you still play a land this turn, or did that copy of silence resolve
this turn)
* Details of actions that impact the consequences of a currently legal game
action (how many copies of high tide have resolved this turn, how many
heroic triggers have resolved this turn)

But there are likely enough other cases that it's difficult to create a
good up/down test for whether a thing is still affecting the game state.

I feel as though it is not fair to call this free information (making it private information by default), although for a more practical reason. I will be simplifying the situation a little, although I believe this simplification is well-founded. The simplification is as follows: The information type of “was a land played on turn X?” is divided into 2 cases: Either X is “this turn”, or X is “not this turn”. I believe we are in agreement that if X is “this turn” then the information is free, hence the question is if X is not “this turn” (i.e. in the past) as in this situation, then what information type is it? That said, here's my argument that this is not free (i.e. it is private) information:

Let's assume that it is free information whether a land has been played on a turn other than the current one. Then let's say it's turn 20 of a Legacy Miracles control mirror, 15 minutes into a High Tide combo sequence, or some other very convoluted and complicated game state. Now NAP asks AP “did you play a land on turn 2?” If this is free information, AP must answer promptly and accurately. However, it is an unreasonable standard to hold AP to to remember whether or not he played a land on turn 2 in a game that has developed this far. Therefore we must allow AP to be able to forget, “forget”, or lie (knowingly or unknowingly). Therefore this information cannot be “free”, QED.

Just because a player may forget a piece of information doesn't mean it should become private information by default, the same argument you presented could be used to evaluate when a creature attacked, when a spell cast, if we apply the argument to those it means that did a creature attack this turn becomes private and you can turn almost any request for previous game actions into private like this whether it affects the game state or not.

If I've played a land this turn is also different from did you play a land on turn 2, I would even say one is Free and one might be Private, if I've played a land this turn or not affects my ability to play a land this turn meaning that it does affect the current game state, if I played a land on turn 2 has no similar effect on the game state well beyond the obvious I have a land in play.

Ultimately it comes to a case by case but I think asking about the turn just gone is close enough to what is happening that I would class it as Free

Edited Gareth Tanner (Dec. 15, 2015 06:16:53 PM)

From a strictly rules perspective I'd say that this is private information. From the MTR (4.1) free information is defined as “Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.” in addition to some other unrelated sets of information. Whether or not a player has played a land on any turn other than the current one has no bearing on the current game state so it fails the “still affect the game state” portion.

Taking it a step further, the section on private information states “Private information is information to which players have access only if they are able to determine it from the current visual game state or their own record of previous game actions.” So what you did last turn is specifically defined as private information and is unknown unless you recorded it. Referring back to the thoughtseize example, the player doesn't “know” from the games perspective what's in his opponents hand unless it's noted somewhere.

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

The question is whether this past game action still affects the game state

I'd agree, Dan - and I'd state that it does not, since it was a previous turn, and nothing about the current game state cares if a land was played, or not.

Really, the only thing that's affected by that information is Alex' evaluation of strategic information. The contents of Norman's hand is of great interest to Alex - but it's not (normally) public information.

I think my simple summary, to Alex, is “pay attention”.

d:^D

From what i've read we all agree that this is not free. However it changes when we are still in the turn.

Does that mean that if Alex asked directly after Norman said go (or right before) "Did you play a land this turn?“ we would change our ruling since it is in the current turn? Does the fact that Norman said ”Go“ make this information ”not matter"?

Originally posted by Markus Bauer:

From what i've read we all agree that this is not free. However it changes when we are still in the turn.

Does that mean that if Alex asked directly after Norman said go (or right before) "Did you play a land this turn?“ we would change our ruling since it is in the current turn? Does the fact that Norman said ”Go“ make this information ”not matter"?

It could matter, even in the end phase. NAP casts a creature with flash, then dies to a Searing Blaze as an example.

Is whether or not Norman played a land on his turn not derived information? I have a hard time believing that it isn't based on the definition in MTR 4.1.

“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.”

Alex is entitled to this information, it's his match after all. However this information doesn't meet the requirements for free information as it isn't effecting the current game state. Additionally, Alex can come up with the answer by playing the game back in his head or possibly comparing his land drops with his opponent's.

Trent,

Let me help by quoting the remainder of the section which you have quoted
there:

> 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. 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.

> Private information is information to which players have access only if
they are able to determine it from the current visual game state or their
own record of previous game actions.

> • Any information that is not free or derived is automatically private
information

So, unless something is free or derived, it is automatically private. It
cannot be derived because we want to to be derived, it can only be derived
if it is one of the bullet points above

Thanks, I didn't know about the “… able to determine it from the current visual game state or their own record of previous game actions.” definition.

You're missing the point. “Private information is information to which
players have access only if they are able to determine it from the current
visual game state or their own record of previous game actions.” describes
how private information works. “Any information that is not free or derived
is automatically private information.” defines what information is private.
This information is private because it is neither free nor derived, because
it does not fit into any of the bullet points that define free or derived
information. If you want to know if a piece of information is free,
derived, or private, you don't ask whether a player is entitled access to
it or whether they're able to determine it from the visual game state -
that is a consequence of what type of information it is. The specific
information that is free and derived is specified in those 7 and 3 bullet
points, and any information that is neither is automatically private.

I don't know that the bullet points are all inclusive. If they were, the preceding definitions wouldn't be necessary.

Let's just look at free information:

Free information is information to which all players are entitled access without contamination or omissions made by their opponents. If a player is ever unable or unwilling to provide free information to an opponent that has requested it, he or she should call a judge and explain the situation. Free information includes:
• Details of current game actions and past game actions that still affect the game state.
• The name of any visible object.
• The type of any counter in a public zone.
• The physical status (tapped/flipped/unattached/phased) and current zone of any object.
• Player life totals, poison counter totals, and the game score of the current match.
• The contents of each player’s mana pool.
• The current step and/or phase and which player(s) are active.

The first two sentences create the rules about free information. They describe what the term means and what a player should do if there is a question about free information. The remainder of the quote defines what free information is.

If the bullet points were not binding, then the definition of free information would be circular. Any information to which all players are entitled access is free information, and all players are entitled access to free information. If you don't accept that the bullet points define each type of information, then this entire section reduces to “all players are entitled access to information that all players are entitled access to”.

EDIT: What's more, the definition of private information (“Any information that is not free or derived is automatically private information.”) would be meaningless if free/derived information weren't clearly defined.

Edited Dan Collins (Dec. 19, 2015 08:32:12 AM)

If the bullet points are not exclusive, it can be clarified by saying that
derived information “includes, but is not limited to” the listed bullet
points. But if they are exclusive, that can be clarified by saying that
derived information “consists of” the listed bullet points. In most cases,
tournament rules are primarily made of the former, not the latter, as the
latter usually requires more updating. But no matter which way it is, there
is a method of stating it more clearly.