Christo

Clan: Toreador-Antitribu Capacity: 5 Sabbat Group: 3 Ability: Cristos can search your library for an equipment card and move it to your hand as a +1 stealth action. Discard down to your hand size and shuffle afterward. At our last tournament i noticed something. Most other "search your library for something" effects specifically states that you show the card to the other players. But here it doesnt, so whats to prevent a player from cheating and picking out another card.. minion tap for instance, golconda... whatever...

Nikolaj Wendt wrote: > At our last tournament i noticed something. Most other "search your > library for something" effects specifically states that you show the > card to the other players. > But here it doesnt, so whats to prevent a player from cheating and > picking out another card.. minion tap for instance, golconda... > whatever... The judge. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F60B881...@white-wolf.com>... > Nikolaj Wendt wrote: > > At our last tournament i noticed something. Most other "search your > > library for something" effects specifically states that you show the > > card to the other players. > > But here it doesnt, so whats to prevent a player from cheating and > > picking out another card.. minion tap for instance, golconda... > > whatever... > > The judge. Which would require a judge to overlook every card played and action taken in a game. I suggest an erratum to appear on this, so as to keep the game going. Judges should not be necessary for normal cardplay. Patrick Columbus, OH

"Patrick van der Reest" <sam...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:92081c66.03091...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I dunno, but as far as I'm concerned, it's covered by good sportsmanship. Besides, why are you going to devote a precious action to search for a card you don't intend to play? At least, that's what it will look like to other players. "Hey, you just looked up that weapon, why haven't you played it yet? Didn't see you discard either...."

Patrick van der Reest wrote: > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3F60B881...@white-wolf.com>... >>The judge. > > Which would require a judge to overlook every card played and action > taken in a game. I suggest an erratum to appear on this, so as to keep > the game going. Judges should not be necessary for normal cardplay. No errata necessary. No need to have a judge on everyone's shoulder. See Govern the Unaligned, et al. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Patrick van der Reest" <sam...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > > The judge. > > Which would require a judge to overlook every card played and action > taken in a game. I suggest an erratum to appear on this, so as to keep > the game going. Judges should not be necessary for normal cardplay. Govern the Unaligned (at superior) and similar cards work on the same honour system... Cheers, WES

> > Which would require a judge to overlook every card played and action > > taken in a game. I suggest an erratum to appear on this, so as to keep > > the game going. Judges should not be necessary for normal cardplay. > > No errata necessary. > No need to have a judge on everyone's shoulder. > See Govern the Unaligned, et al. Then why did you print a card like this? Coroner's Contact [BL:U2] Cardtype: Master Cost: 1 pool Master. Go through your crypt to find a Samedi vampire. Show it to all players and place it in your uncontrolled region. Move one blood from the blood bank to that uncontrolled Samedi. If we are all so honest, why should some cards have a "no-cheat condition" on them and some not? Are Samedi players worse cheaters than !Toreador players? This is stupid! Of course the card should have an erratum. A rules system should minimize the chances to cheat. What mechanism or strategy would be destroyed by an erratum in this case? /Mathias

agzocgud wrote: > If we are all so honest, why should some cards have a "no-cheat > condition" on them and some not? Are Samedi players worse cheaters It isn't a "no-cheat condition". It's an information-giving condition. > than !Toreador players? I have no evidence to support such a wild accusation, no. > This is stupid! . > Of course the card should have > an erratum. Unsubstantiated. > A rules system should minimize the chances to cheat. You mistake card text for a rules system. See also Art Museum. For rules system, see the influence phase. > What mechanism or strategy would be destroyed by an erratum in this case? Missing the point. [ quoted text not captured ]

per_m...@hotmail.com (agzocgud) wrote in message news:<6f108788.03091...@posting.google.com>... > > > Which would require a judge to overlook every card played and action > > > taken in a game. I suggest an erratum to appear on this, so as to keep > > > the game going. Judges should not be necessary for normal cardplay. > > > > No errata necessary. > > No need to have a judge on everyone's shoulder. > > See Govern the Unaligned, et al. > > Then why did you print a card like this? > Information is valuable. Having to reveal the card in the case of Coroner's Contact is part of the costing of the card. In this case, the rest of the table can get ready for Turbo Baron when you go get him. Later, ~Rehlow

LSJ expounded: > agzocgud wrote: > > If we are all so honest, why should some cards have a "no-cheat > > condition" on them and some not? Are Samedi players worse cheaters > > It isn't a "no-cheat condition". It's an information-giving condition. On a similar point: should people see what you take from your Ash Heap? In this case the cards in the Ash Heap are supposed to be public knowledge but the relevant cards don't say that you have to show people what you take. If they don't have to show me what they take, can I demand to look through the pile between them playing the card (/taking the action) and choosing their card?

Timlagor wrote: > On a similar point: should people see what you take from your Ash Heap? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:45:11 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> scrawled: >Timlagor wrote: >> On a similar point: should people see what you take from your Ash Heap? > >Yes. also, as far as i can see, most cards that take other cards fromt he ash heap, you announce what card it is you're taking when you announce the action, right? like bum's rush. you don't say 'i bum's rush a minion, any blockers?' you say 'i bum's rush Jost'. so too whispers from the dead. 'i whisper a Conditioning from my ash heap to my hand. any blockers?' salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > LSJ expounded: >> agzocgud wrote: >> > If we are all so honest, why should some cards have a "no-cheat >> > condition" on them and some not? Are Samedi players worse cheaters >> >> It isn't a "no-cheat condition". It's an information-giving >> condition. > > On a similar point: should people see what you take from your Ash > Heap? Of course. The ash heap is public knowledge. > In this case the cards in the Ash Heap are supposed to be public > knowledge The cards aren't SUPPOSED TO BE public knowledge. They ARE public knowledge. > but the relevant cards don't say that you have to show > people what you take. Public knowledge = PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. > If they don't have to show me what they take, They have to. Public knowledge = PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. > can I demand to look through the pile between them > playing the card (/taking the action) and choosing > their card? Irrelevant. Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier