Keeping Track of Storm Count

[Minkar]

Hello,

I just played a game online on Cockatrice using a Tendrils build, and came across a thorny situation.

Opponent is at 16, I generate 6 storm, Demonic Tutor for Tendrils, and cast it for lethal damage. My opponent says I hadn't been counting storm, and i immediately copy+pasted the list of spells I had played that turn to show it was indeed 8 spells. He stated that had I been counting the storm using one of the mana bubbles or something, he would have played differently (Deathrite Shaman'ing a Demonic Tutor instead of Ancestral Recall, since he had a Mental Misstep in hand). I asked if it was protocol for online/paper tournaments to keep track of the storm count for your opponent like that, and he said yes.

I thought this was strange, because if I only began visibly keeping track of the storm count during the turn i was going off, that'd be fairly obvious what I was going to do and he could act accordingly. In order to prevent that, i'd have to count storm for every single turn, including those where I only play one spell, which would be quite tedious and just seems unnatural i think. That combined with the fact that i've never ever seen anyone (even MTGO goesnt have a visible storm counter from what ive seen) count storm on a turn where they weren't considering going all-in leads me to believe it's not my job to provide the storm count throughout the turn for my opponent.

Anyone have any insight on this scenario?

[maatn]

I think your opponent is just a sore loser.

[serracollector]

Agree with the above. I have never seen someone start counting for storm unless they were planning on using it for something. He should of kept track of storm himself or herself once they saw you counting. If thier loss was due to a misplay that misplay was entirely thier own fault at that point and time.

[Wagner]

Agreed with the previous 2. There is no rule that forces you to count storm or to announce how many spells were casts this turn. We do use a mana bubble, a dice, a pen and paper because it's hard to keep track of mentally and we don't want to screw up, not because we have to.

Your opponent didn't pay attention to the game and misplayed, not your fault.

[DaveKap]

I'd be interested in a judge's ruling for a competitive tournament setting. It can be difficult to successfully backtrack.

[Wagner]

I'd be interested in a judge's ruling for a competitive tournament setting. It can be difficult to successfully backtrack.

Agreed, if you have a Time Spiral or Timetwister in the deal, it's much much harder to track what has been played before it. Assuming no game log or camera, what do you do?

[TheWhiteDragon]

Your opponent is just a tool.  You were fine not to count for him, much like you don't have to remind him of triggers, remind him of the phase, or wipe his @$$ after he dumps.

[thecrav]

Storm count is derived information, right?

"Yes I was counting storm, I just wasn't doing it publicly because I didn't want you to know I was on storm"

[fsecco]

That's why I don't even bother playing on Cockatrice...

(of course you don't need to count storm out loud)

[Varal]

There is no need for Infraction Procedure Guide or Tournament Rules. Cockatrice is just like your kitchen table where you play with your friends and tasting partners. Triggers can be missed or not, there can be take back or not, you can count storm or not. It's all about having an enjoyable game. I'm personally lenient on Cockatrice but harsh in Competitive tournaments. You should consider counting storm when it's clear to your opponent that you'll try to Storm him. When you Dark Ritual twice or Gush three times in a row it could be nice to start a Storm Count. Your opponent might do it himself at this point. It's not mandatory it's just nice to save your opponent the time to read 50 lines of Cockatrice text.

You can't apply the same standards to Cockatrice than paper or MTGO because communication isn't as clear as paper or MTGO. It's hard to say what really happened, your opponent told you there was a different line he could have taken. It could mean he misplayed but letting you know about a different line or he could mean that you cheated him out of a win. There's no indication which one he meant so I don't think people are justified to call him a sore loser or worse.

[DaveKap]

Any judges available to weigh in?

[Chubby Rain]

4.1. Player Communication
Communication between players is essential to the successful play of any game that involves virtual objects or hidden information. While bluffing may be an aspect of games, there need to be clear lines as to what is, and is not, acceptable for players to say or otherwise represent. Officials and highly competitive players should understand the line between bluffing and fraud. This will confirm expectations of both sporting and competitive players during a game.

The philosophy of the DCI is that a player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the rules of a game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning. Players are under no obligation to assist their opponents in playing the game. Regardless of anything else, players are expected to treat their opponents politely and with respect. Failure to do so may lead to Unsporting Conduct penalties.

There are three categories of information: free, derived and private.

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 object in a public zone.
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 current step and/or phase and which player(s) are active

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.

The following rules govern player communication:
Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match.
Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.
Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.
At Regular REL, all derived information is instead considered free.

Judges are encouraged to help players in determining free information, but must avoid assisting players with derived information about the game state.

From https://rules.wizards.com/rulebook.aspx?game=Magic&category=Tournament+Policy.

Storm

The official rules for the storm ability are as follows:
502.30. Storm

502.30a Storm is a triggered ability that functions while the card is on the stack. "Storm" means "When you play this spell, put a copy of it onto the stack for each other spell that was played before it this turn. If the spell has any targets, you may choose new targets for any number of the copies."

502.30b If a spell has multiple instances of storm, each triggers separately.

The number of copies is set when the storm spell is played. Count only spells that were played (by any player) before the storm spell was played.

The copies are put directly onto the stack -- they aren't played. That means the copies aren't counted by other storm spells played later during the turn.

Each storm spell with a target allows you to change the target for each copy of that spell. You make that choice for each copy individually.

When counting spells played in a turn, you do count spells that were played face down and spells played from zones other than a hand.

A copy of a spell can be countered, just like any other spell, but each copy has to be countered individually. Countering a storm spell won't counter the copies of it.

From http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Article.aspx?x=magic/faq/scourge.

My interpretation of this is that there really is no such thing as the "storm count". It's a convenience to the players while playing the game. Compared to life totals, Storm is an activated ability and not a critical component of the game like life. The number of spells cast this turn is calculated from past and current game actions and as such derived information from free information. Your opponent is entitled, I think, to ask what spells you have cast this turn and then calculate it themselves (in competitive REL) but you have no obligation to maintain an explicit running count. You also cannot lie about derived information and your opponent is responsible for knowing the rules and what questions he or she could expect an answer to. The number of copies placed on the stack would be free information about the current game state and that would be the only time you would be required to disclose the "storm count".

This makes intuitive sense to me playing Vintage as I would either have to keep track of Storm every turn of the game or disclose that I have a Storm card I could play - which would make Flusterstorm much worse.

[Clariax]

My interpretation of this is that there really is no such thing as the "storm count". It's a convenience to the players while playing the game. Compared to life totals, Storm is an activated ability and not a critical component of the game like life.

There is such a thing as "Storm Count."  It's not an official term, no, but it simply refers to the number of spells that have been cast during the current turn.  Sure someone could keep track of "Number of spells cast this turn" and keep referring to it as such, but storm is (as far as I can recall) the only thing it matters for, so calling it "storm count" is easier for most people.  (Also, storm is a triggered ability, not activated.)


A player is not required to provide their opponent with a running total of how many spells have been played during the turn.  Many do so because it's convenient, and typically doesn't provide your opponent any kind of advantage.  If you think it will for some reason (certainly is possible), you can always keep the count to yourself. 

Making sure you and your opponent are clear and in agreement on something that you know will be relevant later (even if your opponent doesn't know this) also has the advantage that it's less likely there will be a dispute on it, and that if there is a dispute and a judge gets involved, less likely the judge will accept your opponent's version as correct.  Think about it, if you cast 10 spells, graveyards get shuffled around, and such, and then when a judge gets called over, you explain, "I cast Ancestral, then 2 other spells, but I don't remember what, then..." your lack of remembering details may work against you. 

[Minkar]

A player is not required to provide their opponent with a running total of how many spells have been played during the turn.

Thanks for the ruling. I would certainly be fine with providing my opponent with the number if he asked, but I was pretty sure I didnt have to provide and increment a public number each time a spell was played during a turn