Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

I disagree.

Nathan's question could - and probably should - be something more like “for 2?” when Anne attacks. Or “so, I'd take two?” Those are much more likely, and much better questions.

I'm having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around this reasoning. To me, “for 2?” is an obvious trick–it's spoon-feeding the wrong answer to the opponent and hoping the opponent falls for the trap. From my perspective, the questions you've proposed can cause an opponent to miss a trigger they would have otherwise remembered. “What's the power and toughness” cannot, it can only confirm a trigger that would have been missed anyway. (note: not that I believe those questions you proposed are disallowed, mind-tricks and bluffs are absolutely permitted. I just don't see how they're actually any better.)

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

However, the rules favor Anne, here - as quoted and referenced above, Nathan just has to assume the trigger has been remembered, or call attention to it sooner than he might want to.

We don't require players to play as if the opponent remembered all their triggers. The most obvious example is with rule-changing triggers. If my opponent attacks me with two creatures and a Legion Loyalist, I'm not required to assume that I cannot block with tokens. Attempting to block with a token will earn me no infraction and no penalty; my opponent will call me on it and I'll block differently, or else she won't and the trigger is missed.

The rules say that the trigger is assumed to be remembered until otherwise indicated. I'd say declaring your creature as a 2/2 is an indication otherwise. Regardless, as a judge, I'm not forcing a missed trigger. Anna's answer of “its a base 2/2” makes it clear she remembered her trigger; my current position is that I would issue a CPV and back up to the 3/3 bully attacking.

I kind of disagree with Scott's suggested questions, because they sound like they want to move to resolving combat without blocking.

Nathan is most definitely trying to either trick Anne into missing her trigger - Anne could very easily have remembered the trigger at the point it triggered. Given a normal progression Anne could very easily remember the trigger at the point of damage, but by asking that question before the trigger becomes relevant, it's very possible that Anne will just answer 2/2, especially if things have happened between the trigger and declaring attacks.

Now it's just as possible that Nathan is playing with a Regular REL mindset or often plays against players that like to share information properly and Nathan always gets the correct response “It's a 3/3” for example.

Yes there are some triggers that you can try and do things to see if your opponent has forgotten their trigger - Chalice for example as well as the example Eli gave. With Chalice it's a gamble, same with not blocking at 3 life hoping your opponent forgot and you survive on 1 life.

It's also perfectly legal to ask the question - what's the p/t of that creature? If you really want to know if the trigger has resolved and not get tricked by the response you have to ask a more direct question though.

I'm very unlikely to issue a CPV here, especially if it's very clear that Anne did use the word “base” or similar.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the “trigger” thing is a red herring.

Forget about whether Nathan is trying to make Anna miss a trigger. What if Nathan is asking about the power/toughness of a Bully equipped with Paradise Mantle, Haunted Cloak, and Bone Saw? What if Nathan has no creatures in his graveyard is asking about the power/toughness of an attacking Bully bestowed with Nighthowler? What if Anna controls Lovisa Coldeyes, Mayor of Avabruk, Honor of the Pure, and Angel of Jubilation and Nathan is having trouble tracking which bonuses do or don't apply?

In any of those cases, it's reasonable for Nathan to ask about the P/T of Anna's creature. And in any of those cases, I have serious reservations about allowing Anna to answer Nathan's question about the current power and toughness with the creature's base p/t in an attempt to mislead.

Would you allow Anna to answer the way she did in those cases?
If so, can you address the concerns that I raised and explain why it's acceptable?
If not, why does that fact that there's a trigger involved make her answer acceptable?

In any of those cases, it's reasonable for Nathan to ask about the P/T of Anna's creature. And in any of those cases, I have serious reservations about allowing Anna to answer Nathan's question about the current power and toughness with the creature's base p/t in an attempt to mislead.

At Comp REL, I don't think people usually ask their opponents about P/T. Most of the time, it's in a player's best interests not to alert their opponent to what any creature's actual P/T is—the better play is to know what the P/T is yourself, and let your opponent forget about various effects if possible.

I would absolutely permit Anna to reply in a similar manner for all of the cases Eli has presented. Players are not required to answer questions about derived information, period. Making Anna not able to answer in the way she has answered is tantamount to forcing her to answer questions about derived information—which then, by the MTR, must be correct. This is a bad thing.

What David said. Competitive REL allows incomplete but truthful answers about derived information.

A sporting opponent will assist their opponents when there are power/toughness modifications going on. Competitive players will suggest their opponent work it out themselves. Ultra-competitive players will push as close to the line as they can by providing a truthful answer that is not complete.

Originally posted by David Poon:

Making Anna not able to answer in the way she has answered is tantamount to forcing her to answer questions about derived information

I've seen this posted before by other judges, but I'm still not sure I see how one follows from the other. Why can't we, as judges, distinguish between a truthful but incomplete answer and an intentionally deceptive non-answer?

Mark Brown
Ultra-competitive players will push as close to the line as they can by providing a truthful answer that is not complete.

Policy does not say that you must answer truthfully. Policy says you must not “misrepresent” derived information. I'll defer to the policy writers if they tell me otherwise, but I assume that phrasing was chosen intentionally. I've said this before, but I feel like it bears repeating: isn't it clear that Anna responded to Nathan's request for derived information by attempting to misrepresent her 3/3 as a 2/2?

And of course, there's also the point raised by several other judges: what if Anna wasn't speaking English and what Nathan heard was “xx'x x xxxx 2/2 xxxxxxxx”?

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Eli Meyer <
forum-27881-2c9c@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> Why *can't* we, as judges, distinguish between a truthful but incomplete
> answer and an intentionally deceptive non-answer?
>

​Because it's an incredibly tangled web of nuance. And misunderstandings.
Where the line has been drawn may be not 100% optimal, but it is reasonably
clear and easy to adjudicate.​

One big part about this disagreement is probably because the active player did not point out the trigger as the time when it have been triggered, and this cost the non-active player a confusion of the game stage. Policy have said,“that if any of the trigger ability have triggered, we (judges) do not have to consider the player choose to use it.” If this was the case, is more reasonable for check “is the information is the same with the other player?” I agree with what David said for a normal Comp REL, but if this is some thing that could cost one to lost game from, player probably don't want to mess up with the game stage.

Furthermore, is never harm to ask anything that should be free information. Also, what if the non-active player has a light bolt- like card in hand, which requires not just to check the power, and also the toughness?

As I had said before, what is the point for have a opponent who answers a question which you don't even need to ask? Is answering a question which you know is not something that is not what your opponent is asking really “answering”?

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

I've seen this posted before by other judges, but I'm still not sure I see how one follows from the other. Why can't we, as judges, distinguish between a truthful but incomplete answer and an intentionally deceptive non-answer?

I disagree that this is clearly intentionally deceptive. Many competitive players would interpret her response as sidestepping the question, a cheeky way of saying “figure it out yourself”. So, I think that is why we can not expect judges to make that distinction. :P

john bai
Policy have said,“that if any of the trigger ability have triggered, we (judges) do not have to consider the player choose to use it.” If this was the case, is more reasonable for check “is the information is the same with the other player?”

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but Anne has done nothing wrong by choosing not to announce the triggered ability until the point where it has a visible effect on the game state.

john bai
As I had said before, what is the point for have a opponent who answers a question which you don't even need to ask? Is answering a question which you know is not something that is not what your opponent is asking really “answering”?

The MTR has only this to say about questions:

Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.

Since it is silent on the topic of questions and answers about derived or private information, we can only interpret Anne's answer as a statement on its own - the MTR says nothing about what Anne was asked, only what she represented:

Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.

She is not required to answer the question accurately or completely, and even if she does choose to make some statement, that statement is not required to address the question. She is only required to not represent derived information incorrectly.

Edited Dan Collins (June 22, 2016 02:31:32 PM)

Originally posted by Eli Meyer:

I believe those questions you proposed are disallowed

Mark Brown
I kind of disagree with Scott's suggested questions, because they sound like they want to move to resolving combat without blocking.

I see nothing wrong with those questions. yes, they are tricky, not sporting, and have purpose to force AP to miss her trigger by saying “yes, for two”. Also, while they look like you want just move to damage step, you might just also ask for how much damages you are attacking, so I can figure out how to block.