In article <3n3bvh$7...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>,
Nick Ingegneri <ni...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>I'm writing to ask about using the monacle of clarity to ask self-referential
>questions like "What will your answer to the next question I ask you with
>the Monacle of Clarity be?" I don't want to start a debate about the
Wizards of the Coast has said nothing official regarding the
Monocle of Clarity (it's monOcle, folks, not monAcle. Ocular. Works
with the eye. Sorry for the mini-flame, it's a peeve). So you're
technically free to do whatever you want with it.
However, you may find that asking cheese boy questions will end
up in hour long debates about what answers are legal, and you may not be
invited to play with those people again.
I suspect (opinion only) that official tournaments will ban the
use of the Monocle or the Succubus Club.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
On 25 Apr 1995, Nick Ingegneri wrote:
> : However, you may find that asking cheese boy questions will end> : up in hour long debates about what answers are legal, and you may not be
> : invited to play with those people again.
>> You don't understand my Jyhad group. They all play _exactly_ by the rules.
> If there is no ruling banning playing the monocle to force another player
> to take certain actions, then everyone will just start putting monocles in
> their decks and playing it that way. It doesn't matter at all how much it
> unbalances the game, if there is no _official ruling_ on how the monacle can
> be played, it will be played in the way that most benefits the player using
> it.
>
Well, well, well, it seems you would be playing with munchkins. I don't
think there is an official ruling for
this. I suspect there are about 100 or more other questions like this
for which there are no, and will never be official rulings. How about:
"If I wake, and he playes Change of target, am I tapped or untapped ?"
"If I use majesty in the second round, does the spawning pool still hit me?"
"Can I opt not to use the flack jacket ?"
This is why there are judges at tournaments. Your group will have to
decide a ruling for themselves untill an official one comes along. If
they go for the cheesy interprutation of the monocle(which BTW does not
work, according to the text on that card), I reall don't know what to
tell you.
- tony, Prince of Iowa City
Intimate apperal (abr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
: Well, well, well, it seems you would be playing with munchkins. I don't: think there is an official ruling for
: this. I suspect there are about 100 or more other questions like this
: for which there are no, and will never be official rulings. How about:: "If I wake, and he playes Change of target, am I tapped or untapped ?"
WWEF does not untap the waking vampire - just allows it to block and play
reaction cards as though it were untapped (card text). So the vampire is
still tapped.
: "If I use majesty in the second round, does the spawning pool still hit me?"
Don't have a Spawning Pool so I cannot give a definitive answer, but I
am sure that one of the other Elders can.
: "Can I opt not to use the flack jacket ?"
Always. All equipment use is optional. Even back when some equipment
(laptop computer) was mandatory, the choice of using the Flak Jacket
always rested totally in the hands of the player.
Shane Travis | The stupid neither forgive nor forget;
sht...@duke.usask.ca | The naive both forgive and forget;
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | The wise forgive but do not forget.
| -- Thomas Szasz
: Intimate apperal (abr...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:: : "If I use majesty in the second round, does the spawning pool still hit
: :me?"
It depends on when it's tapped :) but probably yes. If you tap it
pre-maneuver, which is the customary time to tap it, majesty will not protect
you from the alligators.
"Can I stop dripping into this thing soon? Huh? Please guys?"
"Shut up, and put the tube back in your wrist, Koko."
Larrx...
In article <3njce6$d...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>,
Nick Ingegneri <ni...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>You don't understand my Jyhad group. They all play _exactly_ by the rules.
I'm sorry to hear that. The basis of *any* game where there are
things that change the rules (CCG's, board games, RPG's whatever), or
even games where a rule is not always the same (spades, for example) is
that the play group must decide as a whole how the game should be
played. If not for the net, Magic would be played 1000 different ways
across the country. Jyhad *is* played many different ways. The
negotiation and decision for a group of its house rules is a very
important thing to settle. I would suggest that you sit down with the
group and say "look, there's a problem with this that makes the game no
fun. How can we fix it so that it doesn't become a problem for us?"
Then show them some of our solutions, and try and come up with a house
rule. You and your entire play group will enjoy the game much more
because of it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I will find out whether the design team is willing to issue rules of thumb
for how Monocle of Clarity should be used.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
>I will find out whether the design team is willing to issue rules of
thumb
>for how Monocle of Clarity should be used.
MoC will be very hard to fix. Read some Raymond Smullyan puzzle books to
see what obscene things can be done with yes/no questions. I think the
only way to control the Monocle would be to restrict the potential
questions to a specific list, or perhaps questions about specific
subjects. Otherwise you're setting yourself a monstrously difficult
problem.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes:
> aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:>> I will find out whether the design team is willing to issue rules
>> of thumb for how Monocle of Clarity should be used.> MoC will be very hard to fix. Read some Raymond Smullyan puzzle
> books to see what obscene things can be done with yes/no questions.
I still like the fix that I proposed: just turn the Monocle into
a universal Telepathic Vote Counting. Before an action, say, "This
action is tentative", tap the Monocle, and proceed with the action.
When the action is concluded, either accept it and proceed, or
reject it and set everything back the way it was before the action
happened. Perfect simulation of being able to see the future; the
only flaws are excessive bookkeeping and deck peeking (for you and
for other players).
Trying to restrict topics of questions sounds too complicated to me.
Brian "what is the name of this newsgroup?" Scearce