Monocle of Clarity

Can you use this card to ask questions like- "Will you attempt to bleed Bob this round?" How far can this be taken? Can you ask someone if they will attempt to bleed a player 2 rounds from now? Would a player be forced to attempt to bleed a player later on even if he would not normally do so (ie. It would fully tap him)???????? -- STD Technology Inc. st...@ug.cs.dal.ca

In article <D0BKA...@cs.dal.ca>, Dan <st...@ug.cs.dal.ca> wrote: > Can you use this card to ask questions like- "Will you attempt to bleed >Bob this round?" > > How far can this be taken? Can you ask someone if they will attempt to >bleed a player 2 rounds from now? Would a player be forced to attempt to >bleed a player later on even if he would not normally do so (ie. It would >fully tap him)???????? See, the fun thigns about this card is that it can be ANY question that would get a yes or no answer...and the other person should abide by the answer when possible.....so things like bleeding/game questions and then also questions for something more like Jyhad meets Truth or Dare :) Mel aka loves the monacle

For those of us who haven't been lucky enough to get this item, like me, could someone post [or mail me] the stats and text on it? -- * Check out this URL for some links I like to use. * * http://www.cfn.cs.dal.ca/~aa343/Profile.html *

The problem with the monocle IMHO, is that you can only ask what someone is going to _attempt_ to do. If you ask someone whether they are gonna bleed someone or not, that person will have to answer something along the lines of "I cannot predict the future" b/c whether his/her bleed gets through or not is not up to him(well it might not be up to him, b/c his/her prey might be able to block all attempts). In our group, the only person with the monocle has traditionally been able to ask "will you attempt to bleed X this turn/next turn/whenever". Anyway, he never does that, he likes asking us if we have intercepts instead (he hates intercepts).

In article <3bvlvr$o...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] hey, i don't really see this as a problem...i see it as just an aspect of the monocle. i think monocle is great! i've also asked whether a predator is going to attempt to bleed his prey...and the thing is, i usually do it to help someone out, not just myself. Jonathan

Jonathan Yen (jtc...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu) wrote: : In article <3bvlvr$o...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, : Josh Hsu <jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote: : >The problem with the monocle IMHO, is that you can only ask what someone is : >going to _attempt_ to do. If you ask someone whether they are gonna bleed uh uh! Let us examine this particular use I got out of the monocle, at one point after a game had gone into one-on-one play: "The next time you hold blood pools in your hand, will it be five or six?" "No." "Okay. For my master phase, I will play the Game of Malkov" Or earlier in the game where I toasted someone in a Malkavian Trick. Trust me, there are immense opportunities with the Monocle if you just think about them. 'Tis kind of funny for me, at least, because when I first acquired the card [which for those of you not possessing this wondrous card is a piece of equiptment which allows the Methuselah to ask any other Methuselah any yes or no question during his (the owner's) untap phase, and that other Meth. must answer as accurately as possible, and if it refers to future events must make it accurrate] through trade I got it as a goof to ask silly "truth or dare" questions. Only after I began to play with it my first time in a Malkavian deck did I begin to appreciate it's value. Another useful scenario: I have many vampires. My predator has less, and is therefore in a somewhat poor position in terms of my having more blockers, but he still has a significant amount. I ask him "Will you attempt to bleed me your next turn?" And of course, depending on his answer, I have the ability to play a misdirection and tap myself out completely to take out my prey without fear of retribution. Ah, the beauties of this card.... Matt the Tired (Justicar)

: silly "truth or dare" questions. Only after I began to play with it my : first time in a Malkavian deck did I begin to appreciate it's value. Of course, you have to realize that when you play Jyhad, your taking on the role of a thousand year old vampire. Thus, when you ask wheter or not your prey wants to date Sally, the evil bloodsucker will probably say no, I'd rather have her for lunch. Larrx...

>The problem with the monocle IMHO, is that you can only ask what someone is >going to _attempt_ to do. If you ask someone whether they are gonna bleed Where on the card does it say that? You're missing a wealth of incredibly powerful questions by confining your imagination to just this one aspect of the Monocle. >someone or not, that person will have to answer something along the lines of >"I cannot predict the future" b/c whether his/her bleed gets through or not is Nope. He *must* answer yes or no. And then take steps to insure that answer is, to his abilites, correct. No philosophizing about the fourth dimension possible. >not up to him(well it might not be up to him, b/c his/her prey might be able >to block all attempts). In our group, the only person with the monocle has >traditionally been able to ask "will you attempt to bleed X this turn/next >turn/whenever". ^^^^^^^ Inferior. Better is "Will any of your minions successfully bleed X(usually me, I haven't seen any reason to use this or any other card in my deck to actually help someone, unless there is a deal in the works) on your next turn?" Now a yes will commit them to trying to bleed (or find something else for their minions to do...) at all costs. Before he could just bleed with one and say "Okay, I've attempted to bleed you." > Anyway, he never does that, he likes asking us if we have > intercepts instead (he hates intercepts). *Shakes head* Waste of an incredibly powerful card. Don Sowell

Josh Hsu (jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote: : Hence, if you were a really devious person, you could ask each person "will : you successfully oust anyone from this game any time during this game" and : because of the above arguement, they have to answer "no" because its the only : answer that they will be able to follow through on. Therefore you can win the : game by asking each of your opponents that question because following that, : they must refrain from ever ousting anyone. YOU ARE GOD! Even I am not that devious. *Matt gets a sly grin.* It would take all the fun out of the game, but I might just give that a shot some time. *wicked grin* Matt the Tired (Justicar) *cackle*

In article <3c2ceu$i...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, Don Sowell <que...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >>going to _attempt_ to do. If you ask someone whether they are gonna bleed >>someone or not, that person will have to answer something along the lines of >>"I cannot predict the future" b/c whether his/her bleed gets through or not is > > Nope. He *must* answer yes or no. And then take steps to insure that >answer is, to his abilites, correct. No philosophizing about the fourth >dimension possible. > Let's look at this from a logical perspective. If you ask the person "will any of your minions successfully bleed x this turn". According to you, the can only answer yes or no. If they answer yes, that means they must bleed X this turn, ie they have to do everything they can to bleed that person(stealth/using all your minions). However _if_ X has enough intercepts and/or other reactions cards such as telepathic counter, none of the bleeds will go through successfully, and therefore the person has not fufilled his/her requirement to bleed X(and furthermore cannot b/c he/she has used all his cards and minions). Since there is an inherent flaw in answering yes(the possibilty that it will not be fulfilled), the person being asked the question must therefore answer "no" or risk lying. Hence, if you were a really devious person, you could ask each person "will you successfully oust anyone from this game any time during this game" and because of the above arguement, they have to answer "no" because its the only answer that they will be able to follow through on. Therefore you can win the game by asking each of your opponents that question because following that, they must refrain from ever ousting anyone. Obviously this is not the way the monocle is to be used(otherwise the entire game is FUBARed). Perhaps an official ruling on what one is allowed to ask with the monocle? p.s. If I'm not too comprehensible, I appologize, I got 1 hour of sleep last night and I had a final this morning. It sucked.

In article <3c2fr8$6...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Josh Hsu <jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote: > >Since there is an inherent flaw in answering yes(the possibilty that it will >not be fulfilled), the person being asked the question must therefore answer >"no" or risk lying. Not at all. The person must abide by their answer "if possible." This means that they have to try their best to do it, but if it is not possible, then they just don't do it. If I ask my prey if they will successfully bleed me next turn and they answer yes, they have to try with everything they've got. BUT if I stop it all, then it wasn't possible, and even though they've run out of options, they've fufilled their contract under the monocle. > >Hence, if you were a really devious person, you could ask each person "will >you successfully oust anyone from this game any time during this game" and >because of the above arguement, they have to answer "no" because its the only >answer that they will be able to follow through on. Therefore you can win the >game by asking each of your opponents that question because following that, >they must refrain from ever ousting anyone. > If you asked me this, I would say yes. After all, that's what all the cards in my library and crypt are designed to do! If it's not possible, it doesn't matter, but if I try my best to oust someone, I've fufilled the contract of the monocle. | 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

In article <3c2ceu$i...@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, Don Sowell <que...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > [ quoted text not captured ] ah...but the card really says "he or she must abide by the answer if possible". right? the problem is that "if possible". i mean, if he does say yes to that question (will you bleed me successfully on your next round?), and then just bleed you once. this is because he did try to abide by his answer and if you blocked, then he wasn't able to do it. if you really want to be picky, then yes, you could say that he has to really try to bleed, and i mean, really try. pull out all the stops on stealth and everything...but in the end, he only has to make one attempt, and if you block it, well, then he wasn't able to do anything about it. Jonathan

Hrm...seems your right, I don't have the card, so I was kinda going on what I thought the card did, my bad. Well anyways, next time you play with the monocle of clarity, ask your prey this: (1)"Whenever you have ready untapped minions during this game, will you bleed your prey?" If they answer yes, whenever they have a ready untapped minion, they must bleed their prey. So if they have say 3 vamps and 1 ally at the beginning of their minion phase, each of them must attempt to bleed(whether successful or not). If you don't see the logic, attempt to work throught it one minion at a time. If they answer no, they cannot bleed their prey for the rest of the game. (yes they should be able to uphold that possibility) Simple question, and it either leaves them wide open for the rest of the game(at the end of each and every one of their turns, they should have used all their minions) or it cripples them ruthlessly(not being able to bleed your prey is pretty bad since that is one of the only two ways of getting the edge, the other being "regaining the upper hand"). If you want, you can ask the (2)"will you oust your prey to the best of your ability" question first, thus ensuring that when you ask (1) they will have to say yes(if they say no, it kinda contradicts their answer (2) assuming they said yes to (2)). -Josh p.s. Anyone think the monocle of clarity is just a _little_ too powerful?

Josh Hsu (jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote: : p.s. Anyone think the monocle of clarity is just a _little_ too powerful? No, I think we are just a _little_ too devious with it. Which is not to say we have said anything wrong. Somehow I think this one slipped by the play testers and designers, as I am SURE they did not intend it to be used to such bitter effectiveness, or else they would have put some other caveat on it. Just bear in mind that this CAN be reversed on you with a steal equiptment, or torporizing and diablerizing the vamp that owns it, so be careful. (Just to be more careful with this, I put try to put it on my designated non-bleeding non-attacking reaction card playing minion [if I have one] in the game to avoid combat). Matt the Tired (Justicar)

Before I could do anything to stop it, Matt Dworkin wrote: > Just bear in mind that this CAN be reversed on you with a steal > equiptment, or torporizing and diablerizing the vamp that owns it, so be > careful. (Just to be more careful with this, I put try to put it on > my designated non-bleeding non-attacking reaction card playing minion [if > I have one] in the game to avoid combat). We pretty much just always block the damn thing when it shows up. The people who usually like to play it haven't even tried to get it on the table lately. We have a house rule that limits the scope of the question to one turn, rather than the rest of the game, but most of us would rather just not bother with it. -- Arrogantly twisting the sterile canvas snoot of a | a-Henh! fully charged icing annointment utensil, he poots forth | a tiny green rosette near the summit of a dense but | Brian radiant muffin of his own design. | Wilson | We miss you, Frank! |

In article <3c39p6$k...@news.acns.nwu.edu> jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes: >Well anyways, next time you play with the monocle of clarity, ask your prey >this: >(1)"Whenever you have ready untapped minions during this game, will you >bleed your prey?" > >If they answer yes, whenever they have a ready untapped minion, they must >bleed their prey. So if they have say 3 vamps and 1 ally at the beginning of >their minion phase, each of them must attempt to bleed(whether successful or >not). If you don't see the logic, attempt to work throught it one minion at a >time. > >If they answer no, they cannot bleed their prey for the rest of the game. >(yes they should be able to uphold that possibility) Answering no is the right thing to do in this case, and would only mean that they must choose not to bleed you AT LEAST ONCE when they have an opportunity to do so. What you are asking is "for all minions, for all situations when that minion is untapped and ready, will it attempt to bleed?" So I'd answer no, and discharge my responsibility by having one minion attempt to hunt (or equip, or call a vote). Since I can do this anytime before the game ends, this question isn't much of a constraint. (If you want to say that a "no" answer means every minion must always not bleed, then you must also agree that a "yes" answer is satisfied by one minion bleeding once.) Mike

jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes: >Well anyways, next time you play with the monocle of clarity, ask your prey >this: >(1)"Whenever you have ready untapped minions during this game, will you >bleed your prey?" [yes answer deleted, this works if someone is foolish enough to answer yes] >If they answer no, they cannot bleed their prey for the rest of the game. >(yes they should be able to uphold that possibility) Uhh, no. Say I answer no. I don't attempt to bleed next turn. The following turn I do. I'm still holding true to saying no to "Whenever I'm able, I will attempt to bleed". Why? Because .not.(whenever).ne.(always). "Sometimes" is also equal to .not.(whenever). > >p.s. Anyone think the monocle of clarity is just a _little_ too powerful? > Nah, it's fun, makes you think. But it opens up a HUGE can of semantic rules lawyering arguments. Alec -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

> (1)"Whenever you have ready untapped minions during this game, will you > bleed your prey?" > If they answer yes, whenever they have a ready untapped minion, they must > bleed their prey. Yep. So far, so good. > If they answer no, they cannot bleed their prey for the rest of the game. > (yes they should be able to uphold that possibility) I don't think so. All they have to do to uphold their answer of "no" is to once, at some time, refuse to bleed with a ready untapped minion. They are only in default of their statement if they always bleed with ready untapped minions for the rest of the game. The monocle doesn't seem as bad as some of the logic being used to describe it. ;-) papillo the mathematician

>>p.s. Anyone think the monocle of clarity is just a _little_ too powerful? >Nah, it's fun, makes you think. But it opens up a HUGE can of semantic rules >lawyering arguments. and best of all...(providing WoTC Design teams aren't screwing around again) The card doesn't say the questions _have_ to relate to the game. And for some reason a female friend of mine _never_ lets me get the Monocle out without a fight... ;) CT -- .:::. :: :: :::::. :::::: :::::. :::::: .::::. :: :: :::::. :::: .::':: :::::: :: '' ::..:: ::..:' ::.. :: :: ' :: ' :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ':.. ' :: ' :: .. ''':: ::'':. ::'' ::::' :: :: :: :: :: ::::' :: '':. :: ':::' :: :::::' :::::: :: ':. :::: '::::' '::::' :: ':. :::: ::.::' ::::

Ok, so according to you guys, you only have to fulfill what you perceive to be the question. Thats find and dandy with me (I don't have a monocle =]) So lets take the case where my predator uses the monocle and asks me the question "Will you successfully bleed your prey during your next turn" and I answer no. Now a turn is composed of many different phases, the master phase, the minion phase, untap, influence, etc. So if I do not bleed my prey during any one of these phases (untap for instance) then I did not bleed my opponent during my turn(at least that part of my turn). Therefore I have fulfilled the question by not bleeding my prey and later during my minion phase, I can have one of my vampires bleed him. This is obviously wrong, but this kind of arguement is the same kind of arguement that you guys are giving me. Namely that you only need to fulfill a question once and as soon as you fulfill it, its history and you don't have to worry about it ever again. Personally I don't care either way, b/c if you play that you have to fulfill all interpretations of the question, then we won't play with it b/c it will be too powerful. If we play that you only have to fulfill your own interpretation(whatever that interpretation may be whether everyone else agrees or not) then the monocle is worthless and can't do very much at all.

In article <3c39p6$k...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Josh Hsu <jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote: >Well anyways, next time you play with the monocle of clarity, ask your prey >this: >(1)"Whenever you have ready untapped minions during this game, will you >bleed your prey?" > >If they answer yes, whenever they have a ready untapped minion, they must >bleed their prey. So if they have say 3 vamps and 1 ally at the beginning of >their minion phase, each of them must attempt to bleed(whether successful or >not). If you don't see the logic, attempt to work throught it one minion at a >time. > >If they answer no, they cannot bleed their prey for the rest of the game. >(yes they should be able to uphold that possibility) Sorry, but this isn't the case. I can answer no and still bleed my prey, as long as at some point during the game one of my ready untapped minions does not bleed my prey. All you need to negate a statement is have one instance that is not true, not all instances (see any introductory logic book). >If you want, you can ask the (2)"will you oust your prey to the best of your >ability" question first, thus ensuring that when you ask (1) they will have to >say yes(if they say no, it kinda contradicts their answer (2) assuming they >said yes to (2)). I would say no to question number two and then not bleed them with one vampire on the next turn (or even on some turn) and it is a valid answer. I feel that if a player is attepting to abuse the monocle, I have every right to twist it as much as I can. >p.s. Anyone think the monocle of clarity is just a _little_ too powerful? It is powerful, but not more so than many other cards. I can think of many questions that would be important in the game, but none that will destroy a given player. It does take a bit of understanding of formal logic to help control it... David Kass -- David Kass Caltech Grad E-Mail: dk...@portia.caltech.edu Planetary Science Research: dk...@venus1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <3c69vu$8...@news.acns.nwu.edu> jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes: >Ok, so according to you guys, you only have to fulfill what you perceive to be >the question. >Thats find and dandy with me (I don't have a monocle =]) No. Before you answer the question, you should definitely make sure what question you are answering -- especially if the question is ambiguous or vague. >So lets take the case where my predator uses the monocle and asks me the >question "Will you successfully bleed your prey during your next turn" and I >answer no. > >Now a turn is composed of many different phases, the master phase, the minion >phase, untap, influence, etc. So if I do not bleed my prey during any one of >these phases (untap for instance) then I did not bleed my opponent during my >turn(at least that part of my turn). Therefore I have fulfilled the question >by not bleeding my prey and later during my minion phase, I can have one of my >vampires bleed him. > >This is obviously wrong, but this kind of arguement is the same kind of >arguement that you guys are giving me. Namely that you only need to fulfill a >question once and as soon as you fulfill it, its history and you don't have to >worry about it ever again. You have it backwards. A yes answer (Yes, I will successfully bleed my prey during my next turn) is satisfied if I bleed my prey during any one of these phases. For a no answer to be satisfied, I must not bleed my prey during any one of these phases. This is basic logic; "always P" is false if "sometimes not P" is true. >Personally I don't care either way, b/c if you play that you have to fulfill >all interpretations of the question, then we won't play with it b/c it will be >too powerful. >If we play that you only have to fulfill your own interpretation(whatever that >interpretation may be whether everyone else agrees or not) then the monocle is >worthless and can't do very much at all. Why not play that both the questioner and questionee (?) agree to an interpretation and then the answer is given?

To the guy who thought asking "Whenever you have ready, untaped minions during the game, will you attempt to bleed your prey?" with the monocle would commit them to either bleeding or not bleeding for the rest of the game, I think you have out thought yourself. If I were asked this question, I would simply answer "no". Now all I have to do is simply NOT attempt to bleed on ONE turn, and it doesn't even have to be my next one. Obviously then I've fufilled my obligation. -- Ladyfinger hots...@iastate.edu

In article <3c7p4u$a...@news.iastate.edu>, hots...@iastate.edu (Ladyfinger) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] All this stuff is well and good, but you can ask a question *each* turn with the Monocle. So the variations to the questions will eventually get you (and the other opponents). -- Dale Hurtt dhu...@harris.com

In article <3c7p4u$a...@news.iastate.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, after thinking about this question for a bit I've realized something. Namely, that the interpretation of the question is irrelevant. What matters is whether you contradict your answer or not. Let's take a trip down memory lane and have a hypothetic meth. ask his hyp. prey "Whenever you have ready untapped minions during the game will you attempt to bleed your prey?". Now everyone agrees that if he says yes, that he has to bleed whenever he has ready untapped minions(or at least thats what it seems to be) Now the disagreement comes when said prey says "no". People think that if the askee says "no" that all he/she has to do is fulfill the statement not(Whenever you have ready untapped minions during the game, will you bleed your prey) [yes I used logic gates just to be more general and unspecific). So in essence, if you say "no" you can fulfill that one statement and then go on later to bleed your prey. There is one big problem with that. If later on you have ready untapped minions and you go bleed your prey, the you are contradiciting your answer to "whenever you have ready untapped minions during the game, will you bleed your prey?". Why do I say this? Simple. Before you can attempt to bleed your prey, you have untapped minions right? (space left for arguement over this point) Therefore the first part of the question is true, you have ready untapped minions. Now if you bleed your prey, the second part of the question is also true(you have attempted to bleed your prey). (space left for arguement over this point) So in essence, you have bled your prey when you had untapped minions(which requires a yes answer to the question). (space left for arguement over this) But before you said no to the question. You have contradicted your answer. The main point I'm trying to make here is that the question is not whether you fulfill what your interpretation of the question is or not. The question is whether you've followed your answer to the monocle question or not. -josh p.s. for the guy that was arguing about semantics before... does that mean you can replace words with homonyms or alternate definitions for the words in the question, ie if monocle man asks me "Do I have an intercept card in my hand" I can look at my empty left hand and say "no" truthfully? Heh...that would be silly ;) later y'all

jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes: >Let's take a trip down memory lane and have a hypothetic meth. ask his hyp. >prey "Whenever you have ready untapped minions during the game will you >attempt to bleed your prey?". >Now everyone agrees that if he says yes, that he has to bleed whenever he has >ready untapped minions(or at least thats what it seems to be) >Now the disagreement comes when said prey says "no". >People think that if the askee says "no" that all he/she has to do is fulfill >the statement not(Whenever you have ready untapped minions during the game, >will you bleed your prey) [yes I used logic gates just to be more general and >unspecific). So in essence, if you say "no" you can fulfill that one >statement and then go on later to bleed your prey. >There is one big problem with that. If later on you have ready untapped >minions and you go bleed your prey, the you are contradiciting your answer to >"whenever you have ready untapped minions during the game, will you bleed your >prey?". Why do I say this? Simple. Before you can attempt to bleed your >prey, you have untapped minions right? >(space left for arguement over this point) >Therefore the first part of the question is true, you have ready untapped >minions. Now if you bleed your prey, the second part of the question is >also true(you have attempted to bleed your prey). No. The first part says "whenever" as in: Every time. If I had a ready, untapped minion not attempt to bleed my prey even once, then I will have successfully *not* attempted to bleed my prey *whenever* I have such a minion. End of obligation. >But before you said no to the question. You have contradicted your answer. >The main point I'm trying to make here is that the question is not whether you >fulfill what your interpretation of the question is or not. The question is >whether you've followed your answer to the monocle question or not. The question: will you ever attempt to bleed your prey again? is quite different than: will you always attempt to bleed your prey? "whenever" make the question a variation of the latter. L. Scott Johnson

IMHO, the monocle is a card that allows you to percieve the truth, not compel a metheuseluh to obey. The reason you are forced to do your best to make "future" answers come true is to prevent the other players from lying. Trying to trick your predator into bleeding all out, or not at all for the rest of the game is an inappropriate question for the same reason that "what's your favorite color" is an inappropriate question. You can't answer yes or no, and still be accurately relaying your future plans. If you are compeled to answer truthfully, yet both yes, and no are untrue answers, is it really a yes or no question? The monocle does not change your future plans, it merely makes them known to the other player. I, for one, am all for using the card the way it was intended. My $0.02 (cha-ching) Larrx...

In article <3ca3b6$t...@news.acns.nwu.edu> jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes: >Let's take a trip down memory lane and have a hypothetic meth. ask his hyp. >prey "Whenever you have ready untapped minions during the game will you >attempt to bleed your prey?". > >Now the disagreement comes when said prey says "no". Let's try again. "Whenever" means this turn and next turn and the next until the end of the game. So let's look at a simpler question, "This turn will you attempt to bleed your prey and next turn will you attempt to bleed your prey?" If I answer "no", then I have three choices. I can wait for two turns before attempting to bleed my prey. I can bleed my prey this turn but not next turn, or I can bleed my prey next turn but not this turn. The only thing I am forbidden from doing by my "no" answer is trying to bleed my prey both turns. Suppose instead you ask a similar question about the next three turns. My "no" answer leaves me several choices, the only choice forbidden to me is three consecutive attempts to bleed. As long as one of those turns I do not attempt to bleed my prey, I have acted in a way consistent with my answer. Your "whenever" question is asking about every turn until the end of the game. As long as one of those turns I do not attempt to bleed my prey, I have acted in a way consistent with my "no" answer. ================================================================ Asking "What will your answer to the monocle's next question?" is a borderline yes/no question. What someone is really doing is naming the word they will use, rather than answering a question affirmatively or negatively. ================================================================ Precisely interpreting natural language is a large research area. For an introduction to logic used in contemporary linguistics, you may be interested in this book: James D. McCawley, Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic but were ashamed to ask. University of Chicago Press, 1981. Mike Moore

Michael B. Moore (mmo...@linc.cis.upenn.edu) wrote: <Long explanation of the meaning of 'whenever' in a question deleted> : Asking "What will your answer to the monocle's next question?" is a : borderline yes/no question. What someone is really doing is naming the : word they will use, rather than answering a question affirmatively or : negatively. True, but "Will you answer 'Yes' to the monocle's next question?" is a definite yes/no question. I do agree that one question from the Monnocle can't be as bad as others seem to think: faulty logic being used to eliminate more possibilities than a yes/no question realy can. However, a series of questions, if unrestricted, can be devestating IMOH. MIB#23

In article <3c69vu$8...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Josh Hsu <jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote: >Ok, so according to you guys, you only have to fulfill what you perceive to be >the question. >Thats find and dandy with me (I don't have a monocle =]) No, we're just using the rules of formal logic that naturally limit the power of the monocle. I'll try to explain the key point we're using without resorting to formalism (I apologize to all of you who know formal logic, but you're the ones who already understand this). This is binary logic (ie there are only two possible answers). There are 4 possible cases that can result in complex questions (ones that potentially involve more than one event/time): Always, Never, At least once, At least not once. These cases come in pairs and whenever yes specifies one of the pair, no specifies the other one. The pairs are: {Always and At least not once} and {Never and At least once}. The question itself specifies which pair the answer can come from (and which is yes and which is no in the pair). Thus the person answering the question can always specifiy one of the two At least once conditions, and keep the question from being very limiting. For simple questions (involving only one event at one time) the two possible pairs are identical. Always and At least once are the same (since there is only one item); and Never and At least not once are also the same. Thus they are probably more useful questions since they put more constraints on the person answering the question. All of these assume questions about the future, and what is a person required to do to satisfy their answer. To help clarify, here are a couple examples: Will you bleed your prey whenever possible? This is an Always / At least not once type question (whenever is the key word here) and answering yes chooses Always where as no chooses At least not once (and is the better choice). Will you not block all my actions this turn? This is an Never / At least once type question (not and all are the important words here), again, no is probably the better choice since it chooses at least once and only requires you to block one action, but allows you to block more if desired. Especially since failing to block does not tap the vampire. >So lets take the case where my predator uses the monocle and asks me the >question "Will you successfully bleed your prey during your next turn" and I >answer no. This is an At least once / Never (since never is the no answer). Thus answering no means that you cannot attempt to bleed your prey (unless you can guarantee that, no matter what anyone does, the bleed will not be successful-- the only way I know of to do this is bleed with a 0 bleed ally). Answering yes forces you to bleed you prey at least once and keep on trying until the bleed is successful (possibly trying with all vampires than are ready and untapped). The difficulty is in determining which pair a question refers to and which is yes and which is no. A question that means the same thing (but with different words) can actually use the other pair. For example Will you allow all my actions to succeed? is effectively the same question as my second example, but the answer is actually in the Always / At least not one pair. In general, questions that other players can affect the at least (not) one case will be more powerful since they may require the player to use additional resources to fulfil the case. Also, the longer the time interval (and/or the more attempts possible), the less restricting the question. Thus the more you try to control with the question (ie all of the rest of the game versus the next turn), the less restricting the other case will be. I hope this helps clarify the use of the Monocle... [ quoted text not captured ]

I just read a little of the player's guide and saw the Magic people have played Cosmic Encounters before. This pretty much confirms for me that the Monacle is essentially a "joke" card modeled after the power Seeker in CE (I think I've even read that here or somewhere else.) The person who played the Seeker was allowed to (this is from a long time ago) ask a Yes or No question every time (s)he challenged (attacked) a player's system. Obvious uses included "are you going to play a 20 strength or more card?" and so on. Pretty quickly we figured out you could ask questions not about the attack ("If I let you challenge in The Plant's system, will you attack me?") After that, we started asking the same kind of bizzare, first-order-logic questions from this thread ("For the rest of the game, whenever ... ") It stands out in my mind as being one of the bigger time wasters and most abused and annoying power and I'm sure the Jyhad designers remembered it the same way. Someone posted the Big Abuse to a local BBS a month ago: Question 1: What will you answer the next time I use the Monacle to ask you something? Question 2Yes: Will you be the next person ousted? Question 2No: Will you stop or reduce any of my bleeds against you for the rest of the game?

The Men in Black <bre...@ptang.bevc.blacksburg.va.us> wrote: > I do agree that one question from the Monnocle can't be as bad as others >seem to think: faulty logic being used to eliminate more possibilities than >a yes/no question realy can. However, a series of questions, if unrestricted, >can be devestating IMOH. Oh no, a single question from the Monocle can be devastating. Suppose I ask you, "is it true that you will either answer no to this question or never harm me for the rest of the game". If you answer yes, then it's true that you either answered no to the question or you'll never harm me (remember that you must answer truth- fully). Since you didn't answer no to the question, then it must be true that you'll never harm me. Cool. If you answer no, then it's false that you either answered to to the question or you'll never harm me. However, this is a logical contra- diction, since you actually did answer no to the question, making the correct answer yes! Therefore you can't legally answer no. So the upshot is that when I ask you the question above, you must answer yes, and therefore you must never harm me for the rest of the game. In case you haven't figured it out already, this is insanely powerful. I would therefore recommend that everyone play with the recommendation issued by WotC: that the questions must pertain directly to the game. This means that any questions which refer to themselves, other questions, or someone's personal life (I really should try that one sometime :-)) are treated as illegal. The Monocle is a cool card when you don't abuse it; let's not force WotC to ban it or take it out of print. -- Michael Constant (mco...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu)

I'm on the same line as Larrx... The game gets boring by asking Will your next answer be Yes? (This is a y/n Q) and then (if yes) Will you be ousted by me? Will you take actions with all your minions every turn for the rest of the game and not block me when I take actions against you? (no) Will you ever block me again in this game? Will you ever use combat card agains any of my minions? etc. I think that the word "ever" is the revolting one. IMHO you should only ask about one turn or one vote or one combat etc. Sure you can use the monacle again and again, but it's not ruining the game like the ever q's are. The "Will your next answer be Yes?" or q's giving the same effect should be forbidden. Winner don't ruin the game by forcing other players to lose by using the Monacle. (Not that I've been ousted this way but if I'd get it'd realy piss me off) My two cents for nice players. /Jacob -- =============================================================================== |NAME : Jacob Jonsson |E-Mail | |VV| |STREET : Sernanders v 4:142 | t93...@student.tdb.uu.se| / o | |VV| |ZIP : 752 61 UPPSALA |-------------------------| & |_| | |COUNTRY : Sweden | God is real, unless | | | |VOICE : No voice at all | declared integer | |_______| ===============================================================================

Before I could do anything to stop it, Michael Constant wrote: > Oh no, a single question from the Monocle can be devastating. Suppose > I ask you, "is it true that you will either answer no to this question > or never harm me for the rest of the game". This question is too vague. I have never harmed anyone that I have played Jyhad with, during a game or otherwise. Besides, "never" and "for the rest of the game" have conflicting scopes. [ quoted text not captured ]

Before I could do anything to stop it, Jacob Jonsson wrote: > The game gets boring by asking > Will your next answer be Yes? (This is a y/n Q) The Methuselah is required to answer the question truthfully. The Methuselah cannot answer this question truthfully, as he doesn't know what the question will be, much less what the answer will be. The next question may be something like, "Hey, who was that woman I saw you with last night?" People may work hard to ask monocle questions that provide the desired answer, yet I work just as hard at punching enough holes into their semantics that the answer is pretty much useless whether it's yes or no. I think the monocle is a cheese card, plain and simple. [ quoted text not captured ]

In <3cbp0i$j...@agate.berkeley.edu> mco...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Constant) writes: >Oh no, a single question from the Monocle can be devastating. Suppose >I ask you, "is it true that you will either answer no to this question >or never harm me for the rest of the game". >If you answer yes, then it's true that you either answered no to the >question or you'll never harm me (remember that you must answer truth- >fully). Since you didn't answer no to the question, then it must be >true that you'll never harm me. Cool. Ah...but you're forgetting the true essence of Jyhad...Fine, I, the Methusela won't hurt you for the rest of the game, but here comes Smudge and he wants blood! You may argue that doing this is not in the spirit of fairness, but then again, is asking the original question very fair? Lying and mis-direction is what this game is all about. A similar example is when using the Monocle in conjunction with Game of Malkav: Player A: If I play Game of Malkav this turn, will you hold 5 blood in your hand? Player B: Yes. During Master phase, Player A plays Game of Malkav, and holds out 4 blood. Player reveals the contents of his outstretched hand...it contains 3 blood. Player A: You said you'd hold 5 blood in your hand! You can't do that! Player B: Oh, but I can... Player B brings his other hand from under the table and opens it, revealing 5 blood counters. He has been faithful to his answer, and Player A is now down 4 blood. As with the above example, more often than not, if your opponent tries to screw you with the Monocle, you can screw him even more. It's like granting a Wish spell in Dungeons & Dragons. The players may THINK that they've worded their wish perfectly..... Bottom line, a clever and deceitful player should not be able to avoid getting burned by the Monocle. If your opponent insists on asking unbalancing questions, you have every right to be an absolute stickler. With power comes a price... Just my 2 cents, Jeff Hannes jh0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

In article <3ca3b6$t...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, Josh Hsu <jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote: >Let's take a trip down memory lane and have a hypothetic meth. ask his hyp. >prey "Whenever you have ready untapped minions during the game will you >attempt to bleed your prey?". [long convoluted argument dividing the question into parts and reasking it at each possible time] >So in essence, you have bled your prey when you had untapped minions(which >requires a yes answer to the question). The problem is that the question is being asked once and refers to ALL possible bleeds between then and the end of the game. Just because I have done some of them, doesn't mean that they are no longer relevant. You're implying that the monocle asks the question again and again without the player doing anything. Thus as long as at some point I don't bleed, my answer of no is valid. The question doesn't break up the way you want it to. It would be more proper to express it as For all cases where you have a ready untapped minion, you will bleed your prey in the case of yes; and There exists one case where you have a ready untapped minion, you will not bleed your prey. (Its so much shorter with the formal symbols). This is predicate calculus. >But before you said no to the question. You have contradicted your answer. >The main point I'm trying to make here is that the question is not whether you >fulfill what your interpretation of the question is or not. The question is >whether you've followed your answer to the monocle question or not. This is not an issue of interpretation. I'm just using a single way of expressing the question that is constant for all questions. I'm not interpreting the question any more than anyone else (everyone has to interpret the question since they need to translate the sounds into meaning--I'm just using a bit more formal system). >p.s. for the guy that was arguing about semantics before... does that mean you >can replace words with homonyms or alternate definitions for the words in the >question, ie if monocle man asks me "Do I have an intercept card in my hand" >I can look at my empty left hand and say "no" truthfully? >Heh...that would be silly ;) If you're referring to my article, I'm not arguing semantics, I'm translating (without loss of meaning) the question into a more formal notation (notably predicate calculus) and using the rules that exist in that notation to show what is impied by each answer. To the thread dealing with asking whether you will answer yes to the next question, I agree that it will work and is nasty, but consider it not directly relevant to the game (following the rules commitee reccomendation) (The game is defined as the cards in the various places...) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3cbp0i$j...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Michael Constant <mco...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote: >The Men in Black <bre...@ptang.bevc.blacksburg.va.us> wrote: >> I do agree that one question from the Monnocle can't be as bad as others >>seem to think: faulty logic being used to eliminate more possibilities than >>a yes/no question realy can. However, a series of questions, if unrestricted, >>can be devestating IMOH. > >Oh no, a single question from the Monocle can be devastating. Suppose >I ask you, "is it true that you will either answer no to this question >or never harm me for the rest of the game". As you point out, the only possible answer to this question is yes. Thus it is not a question answerable by yes or no since no is not a possible answer. Therefore you cannot ask the question with the Monocle. >In case you haven't figured it out already, this is insanely powerful. >I would therefore recommend that everyone play with the recommendation >issued by WotC: that the questions must pertain directly to the game. >This means that any questions which refer to themselves, other questions, >or someone's personal life (I really should try that one sometime :-)) >are treated as illegal. > >The Monocle is a cool card when you don't abuse it; let's not force WotC >to ban it or take it out of print. I agree with your points. The problem is that too many people do not have the formal logic background to keep it from having its power. I suspect that the best solution is to issue errata that the question can only pertain to the current turn (or maybe any player's next turn). [ quoted text not captured ]

David Michael Kass <dk...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: )Michael Constant <mco...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote: )>Oh no, a single question from the Monocle can be devastating. Suppose )>I ask you, "is it true that you will either answer no to this question )>or never harm me for the rest of the game". ) )As you point out, the only possible answer to this question is yes. Thus )it is not a question answerable by yes or no since no is not a possible )answer. Therefore you cannot ask the question with the Monocle. Based on the wording on the card, you may be right... but replace my question with "is the answer that you will give to this question the same as the correct answer to the question `will you never harm me for the rest of the game'" and my point stands. (If you don't want to bother figuring it out, the upshot of this question is that you can answer either yes or no, but either answer forces you to never harm me for the rest of the game.) )>In case you haven't figured it out already, this is insanely powerful. )>I would therefore recommend that everyone play with the recommendation )>issued by WotC: that the questions must pertain directly to the game. )>This means that any questions which refer to themselves, other questions, )>or someone's personal life (I really should try that one sometime :-)) )>are treated as illegal. )> )>The Monocle is a cool card when you don't abuse it; let's not force WotC )>to ban it or take it out of print. ) )I agree with your points. The problem is that too many people do not have )the formal logic background to keep it from having its power. I suspect )that the best solution is to issue errata that the question can only pertain )to the current turn (or maybe any player's next turn). You missed the point of my post... I will restate it. ---> I would therefore recommend that everyone play with the recommendation ---> issued by WotC: that the questions must pertain directly to the game. I think that this is the best solution. -- Michael Constant (mco...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu)

An even more annoying Monocle combination: Q1: Will your answer to the next Monocle question be 'yes'? Q2: For the rest of the game will your answers to Monocle questions be 'yes'? or Q2: For the rest of the game will you ever answer a Monocle question 'no'? It takes a little longer, but then you can essentially command this player one instruction per turn. Mike Moore

In article <3ca3b6$t...@news.acns.nwu.edu> jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes: >In article <3c7p4u$a...@news.iastate.edu>, >Ladyfinger <hots...@iastate.edu> wrote: >> >>To the guy who thought asking "Whenever you have ready, untaped minions >>during the game, will you attempt to bleed your prey?" with the monocle >So in essence, you have bled your prey when you had untapped minions(which >requires a yes answer to the question). Listen, a yes answer is not required. The question asks me if i will attemt a bleed WHENEVER minions are untaped. Well the plain truth of the matter is that i'm NOT going to do it WHENEVER i have untapped minions. I'm only going to do it when i FEEL like it. My answer is no. >But before you said no to the question. You have contradicted your answer. >The main point I'm trying to make here is that the question is not whether you >fulfill what your interpretation of the question is or not. The question is >whether you've followed your answer to the monocle question or not. Really, I am owing up to the question as it's worded. And it IS poorly worded. Obviously we all can see what the asker is hoping to trap us into doing. His logic just doesn't add up. >p.s. for the guy that was arguing about semantics before... does that mean you >can replace words with homonyms or alternate definitions for the words in the >question, ie if monocle man asks me "Do I have an intercept card in my hand" >I can look at my empty left hand and say "no" truthfully? >Heh...that would be silly ;) BTW, next time someone asks you if you have any "blanks" in your hand, place your cards on the table, smile and say "why no, i don't." -- Ladyfinger hots...@iastate.edu

In article <3cdda8$o...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> dk...@cco.caltech.edu (David Michael Kass) writes: >In article <3cbp0i$j...@agate.berkeley.edu>, >Michael Constant <mco...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote: >>Oh no, a single question from the Monocle can be devastating. Suppose >>I ask you, "is it true that you will either answer no to this question >>or never harm me for the rest of the game". >As you point out, the only possible answer to this question is yes. Thus >it is not a question answerable by yes or no since no is not a possible >answer. Therefore you cannot ask the question with the Monocle. Nope, you can (and should) answer `no` to this question. The only consistent answer is `yes`, since a `no` introduces a paradox. Since nothing I do for the rest of the game will make my answer true, I am totally unconstrained by my 'no' answer. Mike Moore

Everyone is not think hard enough about this card. You only need one more card to make it completely dominating. This card of course is the second sickest card: The Succubus Club... get them to give their vampires, their pool, their cards, etc... mur...@unlv.edu

In article <3cfn5i$6...@news.iastate.edu>, Ladyfinger <hots...@iastate.edu> wrote: >BTW, next time someone asks you if you have any "blanks" in your hand, >place your cards on the table, smile and say "why no, i don't." > Don't bother. Hand is a defined term within the game, referring to your seven cards. Most of the anti-monocle tactics are pretty dirty tricks, and should only be used against people who are using the monocle to play dirty, anyway. Just answer correctly to a question like that. It'll make life easier for your entire play group. | 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

: Don't bother. Hand is a defined term within the game, referring to your : seven cards. Most of the anti-monocle tactics are pretty dirty tricks, : and should only be used against people who are using the monocle to play : dirty, anyway. Just answer correctly to a question like that. It'll make : life easier for your entire play group. Well said. Finding out what you oponent has in their hand is a useful and non-degenerate use of the monocle. If we don't want the monocle banned from tournement play, we can't abuse it. Likewise if we want it used in everyday play, we can't play with the semantics until it's completely useless. Use, and counter the monocles effects maturely, and it's a fun, interesting card, without being abusive. Let's keep it that way. Larrx...

Noone seemed to get the gist of my message. Well here it is. It doesn't matter how you interpret the question, only whether you keep your end of it up. So if the question asks you "will you do A" and you answer no, you can't do A _ever_, because it will contradict your answer(you will have done A). Someone please say you understand what I'm saying(and give an example to prove it too =])

[ quoted text not captured ] >The Succubus Club... [ quoted text not captured ] >mur...@unlv.edu My first thought is: how is this dominating?.... If I pose the question "Are you going to give me Basilia my next turn?", the obvious answer is "No!". But then if there is a way you can word a question such that either a yes or no will get you something, then I can see the power in the combo... Let's see.. "Are you going to give me Anneke next turn, a no answer meaning that you are going to give me Lucian on your next turn instead?" I think this kind of question would be a cheap shot. Can this be worded better? K!z!K

[ quoted text not captured ] > The Succubus Club... [ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps you should think a little more about it. What question would you ask that would make me give up my vampires, my pool, or my cards? [ quoted text not captured ]

Before I could do anything to stop it, Brian MacDonald wrote: > Let's see.. "Are you going to give me Anneke next turn, a no > answer meaning that you are going to give me Lucian on your next > turn instead?" > I think this kind of question would be a cheap shot. Can this > be worded better? Yes, this would be a cheap shot, since it no longer a yes or no question. It wouldn't wash. [ quoted text not captured ]

A good use I've found for Monocle of Clarity is to ask whether my prey is going to attempt to block my first bleed action this turn. If yes, then I'll send in my combat-ready vampire. If no, I send in my enhanced-bleed vampire. The last game I played was very amusing. On the third or so turn, my prey blocked a bleed action, and I played Infernal Pursuit. I struck with Undead Strength, Nimble Feet, and a regular hand strike, but my opponent Dodged. I attempted to press to a second round, confident that I would be able to kill Dancing Dana in a few rounds, but she countered three of my presses, all with Nimble Feet! And the combat ended. The game was just barely starting and I had depleted about half of my library already. My prey was playing a political deck, so I wanted to reduce his political power a bit. The advantage of having the only political deck in the game is that you can Diablerize with impunity. So I used the Monocle of Clarity to ask "Will Anneke vote yes in the first bloodhunt vote this game?" and my prey answered "yes". This changed the nature of the game, because as long as Anneke remained in play, Diablerie would be followed by guaranteed destruction -- no matter who was Diablerizing. " Bianca, playing with her newfound toy, received a clear vision of the future. Anneke, Justicar of the Toreadors, was shouting about the evils of some vampire, calling for his?/her? destruction. 'This sort of behavior should NOT be tolerated. The laws of Caine and the Traditions of the Camarilla demand nothing less than destruction!' " Later in the game, Matt (my prey) played a Ventrue Headquarters. So I used the Monocle this time to ask "In the first bloodhunt vote this game, will you vote 'no' with the Ventrue Headquarters" and my prey answered "yes". Now I (not counting vote cards in hand) had the sole vote (practically) in the first bloodhunt vote this game. Ironically, playing a completely nonpolitical deck, could Diablerize without fear, while Matt, who was playing a political deck, would be subject to my mercy. " Studying this path of the future further, she saw more of the same scene. The Council of Ventrue were insisting on forgiveness in this situation. The vampire on trial must have been important somehow, and these Elders wanted to keep him?/her? alive. " The last turn of the game, I had no cards in my library, and Matt had successfully ousted his prey. I would have to win with the cards in my hand or not at all, because he was never going to let me Withdraw. I decided that my tactic would be to put as many of his vampires into torpor, perhaps Diablerize once, and rip down his defenses so I could Bleed freely. The Monocle of Clarity told me that Anneke, with an Assault Rifle, would personally block my first bleed action this turn. Tura Vaughn (8 cap., sup. Celerity, sup. Potence) decided to face her. Anneke had 7 blood, and Tura 8. I figured that with the cards I had in hand that I could survive the Assualt Rifle and send Anneke into Torpor. Another vampire could Diablerize her (Anneke wouldn't vote after all, but VH would still vote three times "no") and take the Rifle. But it was to prove a short combat. I allowed Anneke to maneuver to long range with IR goggles, and stuck with a Thrown Sewer Lid, Flash, and another Thrown Sewer Lid. However, Anneke Blurred and struck three times with her assault rifle. A total of 18 damage was dealt between us that round alone! To add insult to injury, Anneke played Amaranth -- to Diablerize Tura. " Bianca, still examining the future, declared that she saw Anneke in battle with a vampire. Tura Vaughn decided that vampire would be her, and set out to destroy some property, knowing that Anneke would find her. " As predicted, Anneke showed up, and prevented the destruction of the office buildings in downtown Cleveland, a known power-base for an unnamed Methuselah. But the true reason Tura was doing this was so that she could kill Anneke. " But Anneke vanished in a frenized Blur, and Tura was hit from three sides, simultaneously it seemed, by the same assault rifle. She was able to track the accelerated motions of Anneke somewhat, and hit her with two thrown sewer lids, but even this was not enough to stop the assault. " Tura, down and bleeding and going into torpor, was approached by Anneke. 'You thought you could defeat me.... You will never walk again!' Anneke bent down over Tura and drank her vitae, destroying the vampire forever. " Just then, an enclave of Ventrue arrived on the scene and demanded to know what was going on. Anneke, ashamed of her act, demanded that she be destroyed, and, as Justicar, she had the authority to order her own death. The Ventrue disagreed. " The Methuselah watching this scene in the shadows was amused to learn that the previously unknown vampire in Bianca's precognitive visions was actually Anneke herself. Since Tura was dead, she had no vote, and Anneke would go free. The Methuselah knew, at that moment, he had lost the Jyhad. " -- The government >is< Big Business. .AGLA. | Michael Schmahl (Black-Robe Mage) | M:tG | d""""b | fx...@aurora.alaska.edu | () | Mb dM | fx...@acf-lab.alaska.edu | () () | `VbdP' | Math / CS / Theater / Philosophy | ()() |

Josh Hsu (jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote: : So lets take the case where my predator uses the monocle and asks me the : question "Will you successfully bleed your prey during your next turn" and I : answer no. : Now a turn is composed of many different phases, the master phase, the minion : phase, untap, influence, etc. So if I do not bleed my prey during any one of : these phases (untap for instance) then I did not bleed my opponent during my : turn(at least that part of my turn). Therefore I have fulfilled the question : by not bleeding my prey and later during my minion phase, I can have one of my : vampires bleed him. Your analogy is a bit off. The analogy would be better if you asked: "Will you successfully bleed your prey during each phase of your next turn?"

In article <3cho64$6...@homesick.cs.unlv.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, we were thinking about this. The Succubus Club is not binding on future agreements, so you could use the Monocle during the Club trading (both are untap activities) to ensure that the deal will be honored. That's another use that we would deem fair for the Monocle. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3caa02$l...@netnews.upenn.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] Well, but there is an unambiguous method: Will you answer yes to the monocle's next question? if yes: Will you refrain from attempting to bleed your prey for the remainder of the game? if no: Will ever attempt to bleed your prey again this game? (repeat with variations eliminating votes to cause blood loss to your prey, etc.) This achieves the same functionality as 'what will your answer to the next question be' without the arguments about yes/no questions. BTW... if anyone ever does this in a game I'm in, I'm going to do everything I can to oust them, even if they are a 'natural ally' by virtue of position in the game. But that should go without saying. --Chris -- SCUM Rises to the Top! Chris Lawrence Amshey Science-Fiction Conventioneers of Umass SCUM Chair Hosts of NotJustAnotherCon ams...@student.umass.edu NotJustAnotherCon XI: Oct 20-22 1995 or ams...@twain.ucs.umass.edu

In article <3cfn5i$6...@news.iastate.edu>, Ladyfinger <hots...@iastate.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I think this sort of semantics should not be allowed, since 'hand' is a formal term in the context of the game. The earlier example of holding X blood in your hand w/game of malkav is less clear, since in that context hand is ambiguous. Besides, if play semantics too blatantly, the monocle player will start the traps discussed elsewhere in this thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes: > Noone seemed to get the gist of my message. It's a pity that the Monocle doesn't grant the ability to *ask* questions with clarity :-) > So if the question asks you "will you do A" and you answer no, you > can't do A _ever_, because it will contradict your answer (you will > have done A). A small table of questions and answers: "YES" "NO" (1) "Will you *ever* do A?" You must do A at You must never do A. some point. (2) "Will you *always* do A?" You must always do A. You have to refrain from A at least once. Note the symmetry in the table. You phrased the question similar to (2), but you're interpreting the "no" answer as though it were like (1). If you just ask "will you do A?", it's unclear whether you're asking a question of the first or second kind. Your original question, though, was clearly of the second kind, and a "no" answer permits the answerer to do "A" -- as long as he doesn't do it all the time. Brian "upside-down A, backwards E" Scearce -- Brian Scearce b...@sector7g.eng.sun.com The entire software industry runs on coffee just as much as it runs on electricity. -- Dan Sorenson

Before I could do anything to stop it, Michael G Schmahl wrote: > Your analogy is a bit off. The analogy would be better if you asked: > "Will you successfully bleed your prey during each phase of your next turn?" You cannot answer this question with a yes or a no. First off, you cannot bleed in every phase (who can bleed during their untap or influence phase?) of your next turn. Second, you cannot know for certain if you will bleed successfully or not. Ask me if I will attempt to bleed, I can answer that yes or no. Ask me if I'll succeed... well, it remains to be seen. [ quoted text not captured ]

Before I could do anything to stop it, Chris Lawrence Amshey wrote: > Well, but there is an unambiguous method: > Will you answer yes to the monocle's next question? This is still ambiguous. The player cannot honestly answer the question without knowing what the question is. This is not a yes or no question. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3cle44$1t...@tequesta.gate.net> bwi...@gate.net (Brian Wilson) writes: >Before I could do anything to stop it, Chris Lawrence Amshey wrote: >> Will you answer yes to the monocle's next question? >This is still ambiguous. The player cannot honestly answer the question >without knowing what the question is. This is not a yes or no question. <begin sarcasm> Right, and I cannot honestly answer the question "Will you attempt to bleed your prey next turn?" without knowing what my future action will be. <end sarcasm> The point of these future questions is you "must answer truthfully" and "if the question pertains to the future ... must abide by the answer if possible." (Both quotes from the card text.) These are legitimate anticipated uses of the Monocle. Mike

: <begin sarcasm> : Right, and I cannot honestly answer the question "Will you attempt to bleed : your prey next turn?" without knowing what my future action will be. : <end sarcasm> : The point of these future questions is you "must answer truthfully" and "if : the question pertains to the future ... must abide by the answer if : possible." (Both quotes from the card text.) These are legitimate : anticipated uses of the Monocle. : Mike The problem here is that the Monocle is meant to *learn* the future, not *control* the future. When the Monocle is used against me, I try to truthfully answer the spirit of the question, however, if I don't know, than I don't know, and there's nothing I can do about that. Rather than letting players get forced into taking actions they never would have taken, it should be acceptable to admit that you just can't predict the answer to their question. Can we all please use some understanding with the monocle, instead of using sementics to twist the meaning of it's questions? Larrx...

Before I could do anything to stop it, Michael B. Moore wrote: > <begin sarcasm> > Right, and I cannot honestly answer the question "Will you attempt to bleed > your prey next turn?" without knowing what my future action will be. > <end sarcasm> I can answer this question honestly. If your actions might hinder my bleeding, I'd answer no, otherwise I'd answer yes. This is a legitimate yes or no question that I can answer with the information at hand. > The point of these future questions is you "must answer truthfully" and "if > the question pertains to the future ... must abide by the answer if > possible." (Both quotes from the card text.) These are legitimate > anticipated uses of the Monocle. Try this cheese on me in a game and you'll be waiting a long time for an answer. Here's another scenario for you. Try reading the card and then look at this one: Q: Will your next answer to a question from the Monocle be "yes?" A: Yes. Q: Will you attempt to bleed your prey this turn? A: No. Q: Aren't you required to abide by your previous answer, if possible? A: I didn't know what the question would be at that time, and now I do, so it's not possible for me to abide by it. Sorry. I'll have mine with cheese, please. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3cmoph$1c...@tequesta.gate.net> bwi...@gate.net (Brian Wilson) writes: >Here's another scenario for you. Try reading the card and then >look at this one: > >Q: Will your next answer to a question from the Monocle be "yes?" > >A: Yes. > >Q: Will you attempt to bleed your prey this turn? > >A: No. OK, there is a way out of this series of questions, but it's not the one you suggest. Since you have to answer truthfully, but only have to abide by your answer if possible, it may be the case that the only true answer to the second question contradicts your answer to the first question. This might be the case if all your minions were in torpor when the second question was asked. However, in the scenario you suggest it is still POSSIBLE to give a truthful 'yes' answer (your excuse doesn't make 'yes' impossible) so you are compelled by the Monocle to give a 'yes' answer. You are also compelled to attempt a bleed this turn if possible. Mike Moore

David Michael Kass (dk...@cco.caltech.edu) wrote: > In article <3ca3b6$t...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, > Josh Hsu <jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu> wrote: > >Let's take a trip down memory lane and have a hypothetic meth. ask his hyp. > >prey "Whenever you have ready untapped minions during the game will you > >attempt to bleed your prey?". How about this use!?!? First turn you can, ask your predator, "Will you answer yes to the next question I ask you with the monocle?" Then on your next turn if he answered "NO" ask him if he will bleed you again during the rest of the game? Oh, "NO," great then! If he said "YES" to the first question, then ask him if he will tap all his minions doing things other than bleeding you each turn. Or if you have the Succubus Club then ask for some pool or a vampire perhaps! I think this card requires a few restrictions! da...@rain.org

Before I could do anything to stop it, Michael B. Moore wrote: > OK, there is a way out of this series of questions, but it's not the one > you suggest. Since you have to answer truthfully, but only have to abide > by your answer if possible, it may be the case that the only true answer to > the second question contradicts your answer to the first question. This > might be the case if all your minions were in torpor when the second > question was asked. > However, in the scenario you suggest it is still POSSIBLE to give a > truthful 'yes' answer (your excuse doesn't make 'yes' impossible) so you > are compelled by the Monocle to give a 'yes' answer. You are also > compelled to attempt a bleed this turn if possible. I'm not compelled in any way. The first question is a cheese question, and I can't be held responsible for an answer to a question that I never heard. Will you agree with the next statement I post about the Monocle? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3c2iff$d...@netnews.upenn.edu> mdwo...@force.stwing.upenn.edu (Matt Dworkin) writes: >From: mdwo...@force.stwing.upenn.edu (Matt Dworkin) >Subject: Re: Monocle of Clarity >Date: 6 Dec 1994 20:44:31 GMT >Josh Hsu (jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote: >: Hence, if you were a really devious person, you could ask each person "will >: you successfully oust anyone from this game any time during this game" and >: because of the above arguement, they have to answer "no" because its the only >: answer that they will be able to follow through on. Therefore you can win the >: game by asking each of your opponents that question because following that, >: they must refrain from ever ousting anyone. >YOU ARE GOD! >Even I am not that devious. >*Matt gets a sly grin.* >It would take all the fun out of the game, but I might just give that >a shot some time. *wicked grin* Doesn't work. The card says 'if possible' (I gather, I don't have it) so you answer 'Yes'. Obviously, if it is possible for you to oust the other players then you will. - Daniel

In article <3cp0jk$6...@news.acns.nwu.edu> jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes: >If the person with the monocle asks a series of two questions that conflict >with each other, which one do you answer? >q1) will you answer yes to my next question >a1) yes >q2) do you have any intercept cards in your hand? >a2) no I do not have any intercept cards or > yes because of your previous question? Each question must be answered truthfully, so I'd answer 'no' if I had no intercept cards. In this case it is not possible to abide by the first answer. Mike Moore

Josh Hsu (jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote: : Let's take a trip down memory lane and have a hypothetic meth. ask his hyp. : prey "Whenever you have ready untapped minions during the game will you : attempt to bleed your prey?". : Now everyone agrees that if he says yes, that he has to bleed whenever he has : ready untapped minions(or at least thats what it seems to be) : Now the disagreement comes when said prey says "no". There has to be an interpretation problem here. Can someone please give me the exact text of this card, please. I think the answer to all the problems over the card is that it doesn't force you to answer a question you can't answer. I'm not sure about this, but it seems to me that its intent was to be purely infromative. If not, this card is way too powerful. Kevin

In article <3cl5mh$9...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, Brian Scearce <b...@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote: >A small table of questions and answers: > > "YES" "NO" >(1) "Will you *ever* do A?" You must do A at You must never do A. > some point. > >(2) "Will you *always* do A?" You must always do A. You have to refrain > from A at least once. > Your table is fine, but your interpretation of my question is wrong. "will you ever do A" ne "will you do a whenever b is true" -josh nice table though...

That brings up a question for me. If the person with the monocle asks a series of two questions that conflict with each other, which one do you answer? For instance (btw don't flame the example, b/c its meant to illustrate, not be realistic): q1) will you answer yes to my next question a1) yes q2) do you have any intercept cards in your hand? a2) no I do not have any intercept cards or yes because of your previous question? just asking for opinions. if you can think of a better example, post it.

>Use, and counter the monocles effects maturely, and it's a fun, interesting >card, without being abusive. Let's keep it that way. > >Larrx... > A big hearty laugh. Used maturely? To my way of thinking, anyone who worries overly long about maturity while playing jyhad is missing the fun. When I play this game with the Queen of England or Mother Teresa, I'll worry about mature, responsible playing. When I play with my friends, I'm going to shout "Bahahaha" whenever Cassandra--Magus Prime fires off her assult rifle. I would rather have a card banned from tournament play than to be told to act my age and play maturely. -- Ladyfinger hots...@iastate.edu

Ladyfinger (hots...@iastate.edu) wrote: : >Use, and counter the monocles effects maturely, and it's a fun, interesting [ quoted text not captured ] By mature, I meant being aware that the game is supposed to be fun. Not just for you, but for everybody involved. If you find it enjoyable to abuse the monocle in order to confuse your opponent with pseudo-logic, or to humiliate them by issuing commands which make it impossible for them to win, or enjoy, the game, then you are not only being imature, you are being selfish. If this is the way you like to play the game, go right ahead, but you might find yourself laking in people willing to play against you all too soon. If your too caught up in the enjoyment of your own silly sound-effects to be considerate of the feelings of your fellow players, maybe you shouldn't use the monocle in tournaments, but that doesn't mean others should be denied the oppurtunity. Larrx...

In article <3cpjm7$7...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Michael B. Moore <mmo...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Um, yah, but you could also say a yes answer is satisfactory, because you would be fulfilling q1(even if you fubarred q2). Anyway, would you mind my interpreting your answer as you only answer the second question correctly?

In article <3cn8ov$n...@sonic.cord.edu> kcl...@cord.edu (Kevin Clifford Lien) writes: >There has to be an interpretation problem here. Can someone please give >me the exact text of this card, please. I think the answer to all the >problems over the card is that it doesn't force you to answer a question >you can't answer. The text requires an answer. It says nothing about not answering a question. It says you must answer truthfully (from the spoilers list): Monocle of Clarity: Unique Equipment Cost: NA Artist: Margaret Organ-Kean During your untap phase, if bearer is ready, you can ask any Methuselah a yes or no question. He or she must answer truthfully. If the question pertains to the future, he or she must abide by the answer if possible. Using the monocle is not an action. Mike Moore

In article <3cr1bh$3...@news.acns.nwu.edu> jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes: >In article <3cpjm7$7...@netnews.upenn.edu>, >Michael B. Moore <mmo...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote: >>In article <3cp0jk$6...@news.acns.nwu.edu> jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes: >>>q1) will you answer yes to my next question >>>a1) yes >>>q2) do you have any intercept cards in your hand? >>>a2) no I do not have any intercept cards or >>> yes because of your previous question? >>Each question must be answered truthfully, so I'd answer 'no' if I had no >>intercept cards. >Um, yah, but you could also say a yes answer is satisfactory, because you >would be fulfilling q1(even if you fubarred q2). A 'yes' answer is not satisfactory because it is not truthful and the Monocle indicates that you must answer truthfully. >Anyway, would you mind my interpreting your answer as you only answer the >second question correctly? I agree, if there is a conflict, answer the second correctly. Mike

In article <D0vuF...@cs.dal.ca> aa...@cfn.cs.dal.ca (Joseph William Dixon) writes: >Brian Wilson (bwi...@gate.net) wrote: >:Before I could do anything to stop it, Michael B. Moore wrote: >:> "Will you attempt to bleed your prey next turn?" > Heh, I can answer it honestly - just say "no" and don't declare a bleed >unless you *know* it will get through. :) ["attempt" means "to try" and >insinuates risk or a chance of failure, [...] "Attempt" has a precise meaning for Jyhad actions -- minions attempt actions and are successful as long as they are not blocked or their stealth is more than the intercept of the minion attempting to block. Any other connotations of the word are irrelevant. You can't answer "no" and then attempt a bleed action. Mike Moore

Brian Wilson (bwi...@gate.net) wrote: :Before I could do anything to stop it, Michael B. Moore wrote: :> <begin sarcasm> :> Right, and I cannot honestly answer the question "Will you attempt to bleed :> your prey next turn?" without knowing what my future action will be. :> <end sarcasm> : I can answer this question honestly. If your actions might hinder my : bleeding, I'd answer no, otherwise I'd answer yes. This is a legitimate : yes or no question that I can answer with the information at hand. Heh, I can answer it honestly - just say "no" and don't declare a bleed unless you *know* it will get through. :) ["attempt" means "to try" and insinuates risk or a chance of failure, so if I answer yes, then I'm in doubt about my minions' ability to succeed but I'll declare a bleed anyways, but if I answer no, then I *know* they will bleed or I have no intention of declaring a bleed action...] A bit of logic twisting (or perhaps mangling :), but it works... :] -- * Check out this URL for some links I like to use. * * http://www.cfn.cs.dal.ca/~aa343/Profile.html *

da...@rain.org wrote: : How about this use!?!? First turn you can, ask your predator, "Will you : answer yes to the next question I ask you with the monocle?" Then on : your next turn if he answered "NO" ask him if he will bleed you again : during the rest of the game? Oh, "NO," great then! If he said "YES" : to the first question, then ask him if he will tap all his minions doing : things other than bleeding you each turn. Or if you have the Succubus : Club then ask for some pool or a vampire perhaps! I think this card : requires a few restrictions! : da...@rain.org I have talked with people about this card (which I just acquired!) and I think that what it needs is a restriction which says "The monocle may not be used to ask a question which references the monocle, directly or indirectly." Thus asking someone about their future answer to a monocle question would not be allowed. Otherwise, things are just ridiculous... Eric M.

In article <3css3q$1...@nic.umass.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] So you block one of the methods to abusing the card, woo woo, no big deal. If your creative enough, you can abuse this card no matter what you do. (actually that probably isn't true, but I don't think anyone that owns the cards would put up with those kinds of restrictions)

[ quoted text not captured ] Right. As I said in my initial posting, your question is like the (2) in my table. Your interpretation of a "YES" answer is correct; your error comes in interpreting the "NO" answer as though it were a (1)-type question. "Will you do A whenever B is true?" is the same as "Will you *always* do A when B is true?". So a "NO" answer means you only have to refrain once. Brian "trust me, I'm a logician" Scearce [ quoted text not captured ]

bwi...@gate.net (Brian Wilson) writes: >> The point of these future questions is you "must answer truthfully" and "if >> the question pertains to the future ... must abide by the answer if >> possible." (Both quotes from the card text.) These are legitimate >> anticipated uses of the Monocle. >Try this cheese on me in a game and you'll be waiting a long time for an >answer. Here's another scenario for you. Try reading the card and then >look at this one: >Q: Will your next answer to a question from the Monocle be "yes?" >A: Yes. >Q: Will you attempt to bleed your prey this turn? >A: No. >Q: Aren't you required to abide by your previous answer, if possible? >A: I didn't know what the question would be at that time, and now I do, >so it's not possible for me to abide by it. Sorry. >I'll have mine with cheese, please. Are you joking? (I've read your posts before, so I assume you are - and it's simply lost in the ASCII). Obviously you *can* abide by A1, and therefore must say "yes" in A2. (Subsequently attempting to bleed your prey this turn). Say it aint so, Joe! :-)

> > I have talked with people about this card (which I just > >acquired!) and I think that what it needs is a restriction which says > >"The monocle may not be used to ask a question which references the > >monocle, directly or indirectly." Thus asking someone about their future > >answer to a monocle question would not be allowed. Otherwise, things are > >just ridiculous... > So you block one of the methods to abusing the card, woo woo, no big deal. > If your creative enough, you can abuse this card no matter what you do. > (actually that probably isn't true, but I don't think anyone that owns the > cards would put up with those kinds of restrictions) Actually, in a mathematical framework, the ability of a system to reference itself (e.g., for the Monocle to ask questions about future Monocle questions) is the necessary and sufficient condition for the system to contain statements that cannot be proven true or false within the system (at least, if memory serves - it's been a long time since I got my B.A. in mathematics ;-). Disallowing self-referential questions should restore the system to mathematical closure - you shouldn't need to do anything else to avoid the "abuses" of the card. The original poster's suggestion was well-thought- out in this regard. Personally, though, I still prefer to answer each question as truthfully as I can when I am asked, as many other posters have chosen to do. I believe that is within the spirit and design of the Monocle. papillo the rusty

In article 5...@netnews.upenn.edu, mmo...@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Michael B. Moore) writes: > The text requires an answer. It says nothing about not answering a > question. It says you must answer truthfully (from the spoilers list): > > Monocle of Clarity: Unique Equipment > Cost: NA Artist: Margaret Organ-Kean > During your untap phase, if bearer is ready, you can ask any > Methuselah a yes or no question. He or she must answer truthfully. ^^^^^^^^^^^ > If the question pertains to the future, he or she must abide by the > answer if possible. Using the monocle is not an action. > I think that it is clear enough, it says "must answer" that to me means, that you must answer if a question is asked of you, the truthfully part after it just modifies how your answering, but you have to answer thus the words "must answer" after all what good would the card be if I ask a question and you decided not to answer? I can do that without the card. It doesn't offer a choice, you have to answer a question asked to you - otherwise the card has no value what-so-ever. Yes it is a powerful card, this is why you destroy it as the person is bringing it out --Kurt

In article <3csmu3$f...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, Brian Scearce <b...@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote: (table) >Right. As I said in my initial posting, your question is like the (2) >in my table. Your interpretation of a "YES" answer is correct; your >error comes in interpreting the "NO" answer as though it were a >(1)-type question. > >"Will you do A whenever B is true?" is the same as "Will you *always* >do A when B is true?". So a "NO" answer means you only have to refrain >once. I could agree with your statement if it was "will you do A when B is true" and "will you always do A when B is true", however, I believe the whenever B (which is very different from when B) might throw a monkey wrench into your logic.

In article <3cu9jo$n...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>, Bob Ellison <pap...@fc.hp.com> wrote: (idea that dissallowing future reference of monocle answers in monocle answers will balance card) (remark saying that it will take more then that) >Actually, in a mathematical framework, the ability of a system to reference >itself (e.g., for the Monocle to ask questions about future Monocle >questions) is the necessary and sufficient condition for the system to >contain statements that cannot be proven true or false within the system >(at least, if memory serves - it's been a long time since I got my >B.A. in mathematics ;-). > >Disallowing self-referential questions should restore the system to >mathematical closure - you shouldn't need to do anything else to avoid >the "abuses" of the card. The original poster's suggestion was well-thought- >out in this regard. > >Personally, though, I still prefer to answer each question as truthfully >as I can when I am asked, as many other posters have chosen to do. I >believe that is within the spirit and design of the Monocle. (wow, BA in math? and me just a lowly undergrad., and in a bio related topic to boot...whee!). Anyway, if we were dealing in a mathematical framework, sure, I could accept your word for it(not understand mind you, accept is fine though). However, I don't think english quite qualifies as a mathematical framework simply because it has too many hybrid components that are half and half of the types of components you would find in a true mathematical framework. Another question just for you. suppose the following series of questions. q1) next answer to monocle question yes? a1) no q2) will you bleed me at anytime during the rest of the game a2) yes according to you this would be allowable because you answered the second question truthfully and the answer took precedence over that of q1, even though the case where a2 = no would fulfill both requirements(but go against your "wishes") or whatever, my question is that is justfiable in your opinion, right? if so cool, if not *sigh* I need another loophole to jump out of there (no I still don't have a monocle, and I doubt it I ever will)

On using the monocle to ask questions about future monocle answers: The monocle requires that you answer questions truthfully, and does not permit you to "change you mind" later, you must stick to your answer if possible. The monocle doesn't doesn't affect your future actions, it just forces you to give accurate imformation about them. If you are asked whether you will answer yes to the next question, you might answer 'no'. If you are then asked 'Will any of your minions ever take an action again?', then you have a dillema. Obviosly your minions are going to take actions again at some point, and the monocle requires you to answer truthfully, so it is not possible for you to answer no to this question, and you MUST answer yes, despite your first monocle answer. Of course this is all based on the assumption that the monocle can not affect your future actions, but only reveal them. Any opinions? Disagreements? Larrx... (This argument doesn't affect most other monocle questions, by the way. The only reason it's 'not possible' is because the monocle itself demands true answers. Will you bleed, block, do you have these cards, etc. questions are still fine.)

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree. You must take each question seperately(not include the effects of previous questions) and figure out what answer is "true" for you. After that, you see if it matches the previous questions or not, if it does not, well then you have a dilemma, whether to uphold your answer to the first question or to give your "Truthfull" answer to the second question. Personally, I believe that giving a truthful question to the current question takes priority and therefore outweights the previous question, but thats just me. If the answer matches the answer for the previous question, well you don't have a problem.

In article <3d27c1$4...@news.acns.nwu.edu> jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes: >You must take each question seperately(not include the effects of previous >questions) and figure out what answer is "true" for you. >After that, you see if it matches the previous questions or not, if it does >not, well then you have a dilemma, whether to uphold your answer to the first >question or to give your "Truthfull" answer to the second question. You are stretching the tension between "truthful" and "if possible" a bit too much. It is certainly possible for none of my minions to take actions for the rest of the game. Therefore it is possible for me to truthfully answer 'no' when asked, "Will any of your minions take any actions for the rest of the game?" For questions about the future like this, the truth of the answer is determined by my future actions. I can act to make either answer true, so there isn't really just one answer which is "true for me". Josh, maybe if you explained how (what you mean by) "whenever B" differs from "when B", we could clarify how a 'no' answer to your original question can be satisfied by a single action. Can you give an example scenario where a 'no' answer to a "whenever B" question is true and a 'no' answer to a similar "when B" question is false (or vice versa)? We are trying out a house rule that limits Monocle questions to at most one turn in the future. Without a limitation, the Monocle is a very powerful card. It can be used to force an answerer to commit to a course of action. By first asking, "Will you answer 'yes' to the next Monocle question?", you can force the answerer to commit to a course of action of your choosing. Mike Moore

: You are stretching the tension between "truthful" and "if possible" a bit : too much. It is certainly possible for none of my minions to take actions : for the rest of the game. Therefore it is possible for me to truthfully : answer 'no' when asked, "Will any of your minions take any actions for the : rest of the game?" For questions about the future like this, the truth of : the answer is determined by my future actions. I can act to make either : answer true, so there isn't really just one answer which is "true for me". I'm all for personal reality engineering and all that, but this seems like using a really metaphisic answer to a hard reality question... i don't understand all the confusion (44 reponses by now, ye godz, over all this).. If it pertains to the future, you must abide by it. A rule to limit its (obviously unthought-of) potential for abuse is, no metamonocle questions. THat is, no self-referencing (Like the example about asking what somone will answer their next question with... it sounds too cryptic rider-ish). : We are trying out a house rule that limits Monocle questions to at most one : turn in the future. Without a limitation, the Monocle is a very powerful : card. It can be used to force an answerer to commit to a course of action. : By first asking, "Will you answer 'yes' to the next Monocle question?", you : can force the answerer to commit to a course of action of your choosing. Right, that example... also the time limit sounds like a good idea too. Of course, i think it's supposed to be kind of powerful, but... and i think forcing someone to commit in an INFORMED way is the purpose of it (as in, decide now!). Not force someone to make blind choices a la "Will you answer...". : Mike Moore

In article <3d2u27$6...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Michael B. Moore <mmo...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote: >In article <3d27c1$4...@news.acns.nwu.edu> jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes: >>You must take each question seperately(not include the effects of previous >>questions) and figure out what answer is "true" for you. >>After that, you see if it matches the previous questions or not, if it does >>not, well then you have a dilemma, whether to uphold your answer to the first >>question or to give your "Truthfull" answer to the second question. > >You are stretching the tension between "truthful" and "if possible" a bit >too much. It is certainly possible for none of my minions to take actions >for the rest of the game. Therefore it is possible for me to truthfully >answer 'no' when asked, "Will any of your minions take any actions for the >rest of the game?" For questions about the future like this, the truth of >the answer is determined by my future actions. I can act to make either >answer true, so there isn't really just one answer which is "true for me". My point in this matter was that what you plan to do is the truth for you, if (as per your example) you do not plan any actions for your minions for the rest of the game, then your answer should be no. However, if you do plan actions for your minions, your truthful answer is yes, because they will take actions if you can help it. After you have come to your own answer, then you figure in the q1 question of what will be your answer to the next question, and if it doesn't match, well then its a matter of precedence, which question is more important? > >Josh, maybe if you explained how (what you mean by) "whenever B" differs >from "when B", we could clarify how a 'no' answer to your original question >can be satisfied by a single action. Can you give an example scenario >where a 'no' answer to a "whenever B" question is true and a 'no' answer >to a similar "when B" question is false (or vice versa)? Off the top of my head, I can't think of an example(maybe inspiration will strike later this week or something though so hold on to that thought.) Anyways, that was only one of the points that I Wanted to address... My other point was that interpretation of the question is nonimportant(well not essential in determining whether you are upholding your part of the question or not). Taking someonelse's example and twisting it slightly, if your prey asks you something like "will you bleed me during your next turn?" and you answer no, you cannot weasle out of this question by not bleeding your prey during your untap phase(which is almost impossible[army of rats = exception]) and then bleeding him during your minion phase, and giving the excuse that you fulfilled one of the interpretations of the question when you didn't bleed during your untap phase(confusing, but that is essentially what some people said was "legal" to do). Gak that probably made no sense and I don't feel like going back and making sense of it. Anyway, what I propose is that for any given monocle question, you take a look at what the victim of the question did or did not do, and decide whether that action constitutes a yes answer to the question or a no answer to the question. If the answer opposes the one given originally, then said meth. has farked up and should pay whatever penalty there is for lying about a monocle question. >turn in the future. Without a limitation, the Monocle is a very powerful >card. It can be used to force an answerer to commit to a course of action. >By first asking, "Will you answer 'yes' to the next Monocle question?", you >can force the answerer to commit to a course of action of your choosing. I personally don't think a broad and inflexible rule such as this will prevent abuse of the card. IMHO, there are certain questions which don't pertain to future monocle questions that can screw a player just as badly, but since its your game, its your decision. Also, how do you feel about the difference between : "will you successfully bleed..." vs. "will you attempt to bleed..."

The Monocle of Clarity says: During your untap phase, if bearer is ready, you can ask any Methuselah a yes or no question. He or she must answer truthfully. If the question pertains to the future, he or she must abide by the answer if possible. Using the Monocle is not an action. So. Q1: Will you answer 'yes' to the next question I ask with the monocles ? A1: No. Q2: Will you ever attempt to bleed me during the remainder of this game ? A2: Yes. Now you may say this is not legal, since I must abide by the answer if possible, however, I WILL attempt to bleed you later in the game, so it is not possible to abide by the answer. Now you may say I can choose not to bleed you later in the game, and since the monocles say I must abide by the answer if possible, then I must choose not to attempt to bleed you later during the game. However, first I choose wether I will attempt to bleed you later during the game, at this point I have not given an answer to the second question, so I do not have to abide by that, also my decision have nothing whatever to do with the first question, so I don't have to care about that either. I choose to attempt to bleed you later during the game. This is perfectly legal. Then I have to consider the question you asked. Since I have decided to attempt to bleed you, I have to answer yes to your question. Wether this is legal may be discussed, but I think it is fair enough, and it gives a good limitation on the monocles. At least that is how I will use them if I am ever asked a question like this. That is, unless I choose to hit the owner of the card hard in the head with a chair, and then burn the card. For real. Jon Inge Teigland

: "will you successfully bleed..." : vs. : "will you attempt to bleed..." The 'will you successfully' questions are a pain in the ass. I think they are legitimate(if poorly chosen) questions to ask, and I would try to answer them as accurately as possible. The problem is, I have no way of knowing, or controling whether I will successfully bleed. I can attempt to bleed, but my success will depend on my prey, or the guy across the table with Anneke. Thus, my "truthful" answer will seldom, if ever, be possible to uphold. I'll give it my best shot, but it's not my fault if I get blocked. IMHO, it's a waste of a question. Larrx...

Actually, we find only two rules necessary to avoid abuse of the monocle: 1) Questions must be game related. (ending the Monocle of Sexual History gambit favored by certain ruthless players) 2) No self-referential questions. Although I did slip this one once in the past: Cheeser: Will you answer Yes to my next question? YT: Yes. I declare Face of Heathen Night... Cheeser: What the hell's Face of Heathen Night? YT: Yes.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah, that all seems reasonable, but what is your best shot? Just one vampire or all of them? It's kind of ambiguous and it seems that the question asker would try to force you to bleed with all of your vampires, even if (when answering the question) you really only thought one of your vamps was gonna bleed. Who "wins" in thie situation, the owner who says you must bleed with everyone and use all the cards possible, or the prey who says he just has to use one minion, no cards or anything(b/c if the prey let that through, that would be a successful bleeD). Another way of putting it, is who decides what "if possible" means?

One point which is clearly stated on the card, but lots of people seem to keep missing is that the Monacle is intended to allow you to force someone to do something. I'll even go further and say that smart and non-cheesy uses of it will force someone to do something they didn't want to do (example later.) The "proof" of this is the card text. If you are asked about a _future_ action, you have to pick and answer and abide by it. Some of the attempts I just read about how to 'cheat' the Monacle' are trying to ignore this part of it. "Are you going to bleed me for at least 1 pool next turn?" Your honest answer is more-than-likely going to be "it depends," but the card is clear about what you have to do. You are forced to pick either 'yes' or 'no' and then follow up on it. I didn't ask "Are you planning to bleed me next turn?" so you can honestly answer 'no' and later change your mind after I do something. The Monacle' clearly indicates it can be used to force someone to commit to a future action. No for the "forcing someone to do something they didn't intend": suppose I have two minions, Bleeder and Fighter, and I ask you if you will block my next action. You are going to try to block everything Bleeder does, and will never block Fighter (you let him bleed you for 1 if he really wants to.) Unfortunately, you can't say that. A 'yes' answer means you may be forced to use KRCG for +1 intercept in order to block Fighter equiping with a second Machine Gun (and get cut to ribbons by him.) A 'no' answer forces you to let Bleeder suck 8 resource points from your pool. This is a smart, non-cheesy and lethal use of the Monacle'.

Before I could do anything to stop it, L. Scott Johnson wrote: > >Q: Will your next answer to a question from the Monocle be "yes?" > >A: Yes. > >Q: Will you attempt to bleed your prey this turn? > >A: No. > >Q: Aren't you required to abide by your previous answer, if possible? > >A: I didn't know what the question would be at that time, and now I do, > >so it's not possible for me to abide by it. Sorry. > >I'll have mine with cheese, please. > Are you joking? (I've read your posts before, so I assume you are - and it's > simply lost in the ASCII). Obviously you *can* abide by A1, and therefore > must say "yes" in A2. (Subsequently attempting to bleed your prey this turn). > Say it aint so, Joe! :-) I'm afraid it's so. Certainly my answer to the second question could fit with the answer to the first question, but it's not at all required to, since I didn't know the terms of the second question before I answered the first. This whole thing is like trying to get everybody to vote on a Kine Resources Contested before you've set the terms. -- Arrogantly twisting the sterile canvas snoot of a | a-Henh! fully charged icing annointment utensil, he poots forth | a tiny green rosette near the summit of a dense but | Brian radiant muffin of his own design. | Wilson | We miss you, Frank! |

The monocle also says that you must uphold your answer if possible. This pretty clearly states that the person being asked the question gets to determine what is possible or not, so he/she would not be required to use KRCG radio station unless he/she wanted to. All he/she has to do is attemp to uphold it, no where does it say that he/she has to uphold it successfully.

In article <3d575g$2g...@tequesta.gate.net> bwi...@gate.net (Brian Wilson) writes: >Before I could do anything to stop it, L. Scott Johnson wrote: >> Say it aint so, Joe! :-) >I'm afraid it's so. > >This whole thing is like trying to get everybody to vote on a Kine >Resources Contested before you've set the terms. No no no. You may attempt to block before the terms are set. Wait to vote until after they are set. :-) But seriously, when you said that clever uses of the Monocle were cheesy, I take it that you understood these self-referential questions were legal. You can't legally answer 'no' to the second question when your 'yes' answer to the first commits you to answering 'yes' if possible. Trying to weasel out by complaining that you didn't know what the second question would be is worse than cheesy -- it's not legal. You must answer Monocle questions. Your answers must be truthful. You must abide by those answers if possible. Mike Moore

Brian Wilson (bwi...@gate.net) wrote: : Before I could do anything to stop it, Michael G Schmahl wrote: : > Your analogy is a bit off. The analogy would be better if you asked: : > "Will you successfully bleed your prey during each phase of your next turn?" : You cannot answer this question with a yes or a no. First off, you cannot Exactly my point.

: Ah, that all seems reasonable, but what is your best shot? Just one vampire : or all of them? : It's kind of ambiguous and it seems that the question asker would try to force : you to bleed with all of your vampires, even if (when answering the question) : you really only thought one of your vamps was gonna bleed. : Who "wins" in thie situation, the owner who says you must bleed with everyone : and use all the cards possible, or the prey who says he just has to use one : minion, no cards or anything(b/c if the prey let that through, that would be a : successful bleeD). : Another way of putting it, is who decides what "if possible" means? I don't think it's a matter of what's possible, I think it's a matter of making your best quess. Unlike some of the other people who post here, I don't think the monocle can force you to do things. It can make you answer truthfully, but what if you don't know? For example: I'm asked whether or not I will successfully bleed my prey next round. I know that I am going to attempt to bled my prey next round with Anvil, who has thaum, potence, and celerity(he's wicked tough), and I have the cards to back it up. That's what I'm going to do next round, plain and simple, and the monocle can not affect that, only let people know about it. Will I bleed my prey successfully? Well, if he is blocked, he's probably going to torporize the poor sap who blocked him, and he'll only bleed for one, so I'd have to guess that I will successfully bleed. But what if my prey is holding majesty, or telepathic counter? Oops. In that case I was wrong when I answered the monocle. I didn't twist the question, or deliberately misinterperate it, I just didn't have enough information to predict the answer. Of course, the people who claim that the monocle does force actions by other players have made some good arguments. If that is the way your group uses the monocle, then I'd have to say that a yes answer to a 'will you successfully?' question would force you to use every resource at your disposal to carry out your objective. Then you have to decide what 'try your hardest' means. Maybe you played a card poorly. You might have been successful if you were better or more experienced at Jyhad... Larrx...

Before I could do anything to stop it, Michael B. Moore wrote: > But seriously, when you said that clever uses of the Monocle were cheesy, I > take it that you understood these self-referential questions were legal. > You can't legally answer 'no' to the second question when your 'yes' answer > to the first commits you to answering 'yes' if possible. Trying to weasel > out by complaining that you didn't know what the second question would be > is worse than cheesy -- it's not legal. You must answer Monocle questions. > Your answers must be truthful. You must abide by those answers if > possible. The key words are still "if possible." Without knowing the second question, it isn't possible to answer the first question in all honesty. The first question is still a cheesy manipulative move. If you want to ask me, "Are you going to block my next action?" then I'll answer yes or no and be able to stand by it. I say yes, then you whip out a Dawn Operation and send my vamp to torpor. I say no and you waltz in for a 30-point bleed. These are "clever" uses of the Monocle that nobody will argue with. There are a couple of maxims you can go by when playing this game. One is, if you have to ask who's turn it is, it's probably yours. The other one is, if you have to argue too much over the way you're trying to play a card, then you've probably squirted too much Cheez-Wiz on it. [ quoted text not captured ]

bwi...@gate.net (Brian Wilson) writes: >Before I could do anything to stop it, Michael B. Moore wrote: >> OK, there is a way out of this series of questions, but it's not the one >> you suggest. Since you have to answer truthfully, but only have to abide >> by your answer if possible, it may be the case that the only true answer to >> the second question contradicts your answer to the first question. This >> might be the case if all your minions were in torpor when the second >> question was asked. >> However, in the scenario you suggest it is still POSSIBLE to give a >> truthful 'yes' answer (your excuse doesn't make 'yes' impossible) so you >> are compelled by the Monocle to give a 'yes' answer. You are also >> compelled to attempt a bleed this turn if possible. >I'm not compelled in any way. The first question is a cheese question, >and I can't be held responsible for an answer to a question that I never >heard. >Will you agree with the next statement I post about the Monocle? >-- Q: Will you attempt Block my next action with Lucian? A: uh, I don't know what that action will be so I can answer anything I want and not be held to it, so "yes" - Next action Bleed with Loyal Street Gang equipped with Flame thrower, Hawg, and Flak Jacket "Oh, I don't wanna block that, so I don't have to" ------------------------- Let's try and get a very small clue, OK. The card says - must follow your answer *if possible* It's possible to block with Lucian - you gotta try. It's possible to answer "yes" - you gotta do it. ------------------------- "Oh, but that would oust me, I don't wanna get bled!" BooHoo! That's life with the undead! L. Scott Johnson

3 player game. 4 rounds. q1 to predator) will you answer yes to my next question a1)yes q2 to predator) will your minions refrain from doing any actions for the rest of the game? a2)(according to you guys) yes q3 to prey) will you answer yes to my next question? a3)no q4 to prey) will your minions do any actions for the rest of the game? a4)(according to you guys) no There, you've just killed the entire game. Kinda pointless to play after that eh? Methinks you have to set some limits as to what you want the monocle to be able to do/force you to do. I myself prefer the interp. that the monocle lets you see what meths. are planning to do/will attemp to do instead of the interp. that says the monocle forces all meth.s to uphold what they say no matter what.

In article <3db7ii$p...@news.acns.nwu.edu> jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes: >3 player game. >4 rounds. >q1 to predator) will you answer yes to my next question >a1)yes >q2 to predator) will your minions refrain from doing any actions for the rest >of the game? >a2)(according to you guys) yes >q3 to prey) will you answer yes to my next question? >a3)no >q4 to prey) will your minions do any actions for the rest of the game? >a4)(according to you guys) no >Kinda pointless to play after that eh? Maybe not if I am playing an intercept deck where all my cards are REACTION cards. I can still use hunting grounds/gird minions/blood dolls/... to avoid having minions hunt. If I am unlucky enough to be your predator or prey, I'll intercept everything you try (too bad I missed intercepting your first equip action) and make every deal I can to get everyone else to attack you and your minions. I'll redirect bleeds your way and generally do my best to interfere with your ability to win as much as you have interfered with mine. >Methinks you have to set some limits as to what you want the monocle to be >able to do/force you to do. And there have been some good suggestions for house rules to do this: limit the scope of questions to one turn in the future (can't ask about "the rest of the game") or prohibit self-referential questions (can't refer to the monocle, so no q1/q3).

In article <3dbu5t$e...@netnews.upenn.edu>, Michael B. Moore <mmo...@linc.cis.upenn.edu> wrote: >In article <3db7ii$p...@news.acns.nwu.edu> jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes: >>3 player game. >>4 rounds. >>q1 to predator) will you answer yes to my next question >>a1)yes >>q2 to predator) will your minions refrain from doing any actions for the rest >>of the game? >>a2)(according to you guys) yes >>q3 to prey) will you answer yes to my next question? >>a3)no >>q4 to prey) will your minions do any actions for the rest of the game? >>a4)(according to you guys) no >>Kinda pointless to play after that eh? > >Maybe not if I am playing an intercept deck where all my cards are REACTION >cards. I can still use hunting grounds/gird minions/blood dolls/... to >avoid having minions hunt. If I am unlucky enough to be your predator or >prey, I'll intercept everything you try (too bad I missed intercepting your >first equip action) and make every deal I can to get everyone else to >attack you and your minions. I'll redirect bleeds your way and generally >do my best to interfere with your ability to win as much as you have >interfered with mine. 2 more questions / person could easily knock that out. > >>Methinks you have to set some limits as to what you want the monocle to be >>able to do/force you to do. > >And there have been some good suggestions for house rules to do this: limit >the scope of questions to one turn in the future (can't ask about "the rest >of the game") or prohibit self-referential questions (can't refer to the >monocle, so no q1/q3). this was actually in response to some other person's post that there should be no limit on the monocle.

It seems to me the solution is: Q1: Will you answer 'yes' to the next question I ask with the Monocle? A1: No. Q2: Will you ever attempt to bleed me during the remainder of this game? A2: You betcha. Now, Q1: Will you answer in the affirmative to the next question... A1: No. Q2: Will you ever attempt... A2: Yes. Notice I didn't say "in the affirmative" Cheesy questions deserve cheesy answers. -Saul Resnikoff da...@rmii.com

In article <3dqa7o$g...@potogold.rmii.com>, <da...@rmii.com> wrote: >It seems to me the solution is: > >Q1: Will you answer 'yes' to the next question I ask with the Monocle? >A1: No. >Q2: Will you ever attempt to bleed me during the remainder of this game? >A2: You betcha. NOt sure about this, don't have a card to reference, but monocle requires a yes/no question to be asked and a yes/no answer to be given. You betcha is not a valid answer > >Now, Q1: Will you answer in the affirmative to the next question... >A1: No. >Q2: Will you ever attempt... >A2: Yes. Notice I didn't say "in the affirmative" > Brings up the point of semantics again, i.e. hand? do you mean my left or right? etc.

> monocle requires a yes/no question to be asked and a yes/no answer to be > given. You betcha is not a valid answer I won't quote it because of possible copyright violations, but it specifies that the asker must ask a yes or no question, and the askee must respond with the truth. It doesn't say that the askee must say "Yes" or "No". -Saul Resnikoff da...@rmii.com