Having played with this card for years, I witnessed a difference in
ways that people use the card.
One way was for the player to skim through his deck from the top down,
while not revealing any cards to the other players, until he came to
his first piece of equipment.
The other ways was for the player to flip cards over until he revealed
an equipment card, which he then equipped.
Which one is the proper manner of play?
Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp
XZealot wrote:
> Having played with this card for years, I witnessed a difference in
> ways that people use the card.
>
> One way was for the player to skim through his deck from the top down,
> while not revealing any cards to the other players, until he came to
> his first piece of equipment.
>
> The other ways was for the player to flip cards over until he revealed
> an equipment card, which he then equipped.
>
> Which one is the proper manner of play?
The former. The effect does not allow other players to see any cards from the
library (including the one retrieved).
[ quoted text not captured ]
So how do you prevent cheating? The player searching his library may
come another piece of equipment and keep looking until he finds the
one he wants? When the player shuffles he erases any evidence of
impropriety that may have occurred.
[ quoted text not captured ]
XZealot wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:44 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> XZealot wrote:>>> Having played with this card for years, I witnessed a difference in
>>> ways that people use the card.
>>> One way was for the player to skim through his deck from the top down,
>>> while not revealing any cards to the other players, until he came to
>>> his first piece of equipment.
>>> The other ways was for the player to flip cards over until he revealed
>>> an equipment card, which he then equipped.
>>> Which one is the proper manner of play?>> The former. The effect does not allow other players to see any cards from the
>> library (including the one retrieved).>
> So how do you prevent cheating?
Simple. I don't play with cheaters.
> The player searching his library may
> come another piece of equipment and keep looking until he finds the
> one he wants? When the player shuffles he erases any evidence of
> impropriety that may have occurred.
Ask the judge to observe if there's a question of honesty.
See also superior Govern, et al.
On Jul 6, 10:33 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> XZealot wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 9:44 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> XZealot wrote:
> >>> Having played with this card for years, I witnessed a difference in
> >>> ways that people use the card.
> >>> One way was for the player to skim through his deck from the top down,
> >>> while not revealing any cards to the other players, until he came to
> >>> his first piece of equipment.
> >>> The other ways was for the player to flip cards over until he revealed
> >>> an equipment card, which he then equipped.
> >>> Which one is the proper manner of play?
> >> The former. The effect does not allow other players to see any cards from the
> >> library (including the one retrieved).
>
> > So how do you prevent cheating?
>
> Simple. I don't play with cheaters.
If only the IRS was so forgiving.
What if they "inadvertantly" have two cards "stick together" so they
skip a piece of equipment? Is that better or is all innocence is
maintained until a player confesses to being a dirty cheater.
> > The player searching his library may
> > come another piece of equipment and keep looking until he finds the
> > one he wants? When the player shuffles he erases any evidence of
> > impropriety that may have occurred.
>
> Ask the judge to observe if there's a question of honesty.
>
> See also superior Govern, et al.
Generally, Govern get verified when they influence the vampire into
play (having caught plenty of players doing so with an older vampire).
If you had to reveal the cards then that would make play more
verifiable (and nerf Govern the Unaligned in a manner that doesn't
affect its actual cardtext).
[ quoted text not captured ]
XZealot wrote:
> On Jul 6, 10:33 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> XZealot wrote:>>> On Jul 6, 9:44 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>>>> XZealot wrote:>>>>> Having played with this card for years, I witnessed a difference in
>>>>> ways that people use the card.
>>>>> One way was for the player to skim through his deck from the top down,
>>>>> while not revealing any cards to the other players, until he came to
>>>>> his first piece of equipment.
>>>>> The other ways was for the player to flip cards over until he revealed
>>>>> an equipment card, which he then equipped.
>>>>> Which one is the proper manner of play?>>>> The former. The effect does not allow other players to see any cards from the
>>>> library (including the one retrieved).>>> So how do you prevent cheating?>> Simple. I don't play with cheaters.>
> If only the IRS was so forgiving.
>
> What if they "inadvertantly" have two cards "stick together" so they
> skip a piece of equipment?
Then it doesn't matter.
It's still just as random, extraneous quotation marks notwithstanding.
> Is that better or is all innocence is
> maintained until a player confesses to being a dirty cheater.
No.
>>> The player searching his library may
>>> come another piece of equipment and keep looking until he finds the
>>> one he wants? When the player shuffles he erases any evidence of
>>> impropriety that may have occurred.>> Ask the judge to observe if there's a question of honesty.
>>
>> See also superior Govern, et al.>
> Generally, Govern get verified when they influence the vampire into
> play (having caught plenty of players doing so with an older vampire).
Actually, it's rather common to use Govern as a bloat tool, too.
Generally.
> If you had to reveal the cards then that would make play more
> verifiable (and nerf Govern the Unaligned in a manner that doesn't
> affect its actual cardtext).
True, but moot, since you don't have to reveal the cards, and it works just fine.
On Jul 6, 11:58 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> XZealot wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 10:33 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> XZealot wrote:
> >>> On Jul 6, 9:44 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>>> XZealot wrote:
> >>>>> Having played with this card for years, I witnessed a difference in
> >>>>> ways that people use the card.
> >>>>> One way was for the player to skim through his deck from the top down,
> >>>>> while not revealing any cards to the other players, until he came to
> >>>>> his first piece of equipment.
> >>>>> The other ways was for the player to flip cards over until he revealed
> >>>>> an equipment card, which he then equipped.
> >>>>> Which one is the proper manner of play?
> >>>> The former. The effect does not allow other players to see any cards from the
> >>>> library (including the one retrieved).
> >>> So how do you prevent cheating?
> >> Simple. I don't play with cheaters.
>
> > If only the IRS was so forgiving.
>
> > What if they "inadvertantly" have two cards "stick together" so they
> > skip a piece of equipment?
>
> Then it doesn't matter.
> It's still just as random, extraneous quotation marks notwithstanding.
How can you tell the difference? How can I tell at the NAC whether
someone who I have never met before is playing honestly?
> > Is that better or is all innocence is
> > maintained until a player confesses to being a dirty cheater.
>
> No.
>
> >>> The player searching his library may
> >>> come another piece of equipment and keep looking until he finds the
> >>> one he wants? When the player shuffles he erases any evidence of
> >>> impropriety that may have occurred.
> >> Ask the judge to observe if there's a question of honesty.
>
> >> See also superior Govern, et al.
>
> > Generally, Govern get verified when they influence the vampire into
> > play (having caught plenty of players doing so with an older vampire).
>
> Actually, it's rather common to use Govern as a bloat tool, too.
> Generally.
So even more reason to reveal the the target card so that it can be
ensured to be a legal target.
> > If you had to reveal the cards then that would make play more
> > verifiable (and nerf Govern the Unaligned in a manner that doesn't
> > affect its actual cardtext).
>
> True, but moot, since you don't have to reveal the cards, and it works just fine.
Does it really? How would you know? How does the Ostrich know where
the Lion is when it has its head stuck in the sand. You have no
information to work from.
[ quoted text not captured ]
XZealot wrote:
> How can I tell at the NAC whether
> someone who I have never met before is playing honestly?
Already answered in this thread: You call the judge.
> On Jul 6, 11:58 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> Actually, it's rather common to use Govern as a bloat tool, too.
>> Generally.>
> So even more reason to reveal the the target card so that it can be
> ensured to be a legal target.
And yet, it hasn't been a problem for the past 12 years.
The sky is still in place.
>>> If you had to reveal the cards then that would make play more
>>> verifiable (and nerf Govern the Unaligned in a manner that doesn't
>>> affect its actual cardtext).>> True, but moot, since you don't have to reveal the cards, and it works just fine.>
> Does it really? How would you know?
Because I've seen it. Everyone's seen it. It's been in print for 12 years.
Problems are among the things that get raised. This hasn't been a problem.
> How does the Ostrich know where
> the Lion is when it has its head stuck in the sand. You have no
> information to work from.
Just 12 years of the card in the active group.
No information at all to suggest it is a problem, though. You're right there.
[ quoted text not captured ]
What difference does it make if you see your own deck, since you are going
to shuffle it anyway?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
> > The player searching his library may
> > come another piece of equipment and keep looking until he finds the
> > one he wants? When the player shuffles he erases any evidence of
> > impropriety that may have occurred.
>
> Ask the judge to observe if there's a question of honesty.
>
> See also superior Govern, et al.
Some more bad news: cards in the uncontrolled region can be shuffled
randomly around whenever anybody likes. True story. So I can govern
down on a guy, take the counters off him into my pool, govern down
again, take the pool off him again, then pay one to see one, shuffle
all my uncontrolled cards randomly around while giggling maniacally,
then bring out one of those vampires. And nobody can know which was
the one I governed down onto before. You cannot force a player to
indicate whether the vampire they just influenced out is the one they
governed down onto 5 minutes ago. Which makes it more ridiculously
easy to cheat with Governing down. Just keep doing it and bloating,
even if you don't have a younger vampire, then dig for one, shuffle
your cards around, and away you go! If you want to influence one out,
or if the game times out, nobody can bust you. Which I think is a
total pile of crap.
Apparently the answer to this is as always "call the judge when they
do it". But you know, it would make life easier for everybody (players
AND judges) if the player couldn't shuffle their uncontrolled guys
around, and you could point at a vampire and say "THAT is the one you
governed down onto, he better not turn out to be older, otherwise
you're a cheatin varmint." It shouldnt' be necessary in a tournament
environment (i.e. NOT playing with friends) to have to call a judge
over every 3 minutes whenever anybody governs down, enchants down,
plays a Cadet, or any of a hundred other things.
I hear where you are coming from on this one. I raised a stink about
this uncontrolled vampires thing a year or so ago but was thoroughly
shouted down by a whole bunch of people. Apparently everyone around
here thinks its fine for the game to be ridiculously easy to cheat in,
and just recites the usual "play with non-cheaters" or "call a judge"
mantras. Very miniscule rule changes that would have no real effect on
play or anything (i.e. a ruling that you can't shuffle your
uncontrolled vampires around, the only possible purpose of I can think
of would be, um, let's see, oh yeah, cheating with Govern down!),
would make it virtually impossible to cheat in VTES, but this is
apparently not possible, and such a change would apparently result in
violating various ancient obscure sacred tenents of VTES, the nature
of which I am obviously of vastly inferior intellect to understand.
*shrug* Go figure.
Lucky my social games are with cool people I trust. Tournaments are
different of course. But you know what? In a tournament, I can't
actually be bothered calling a judge over every time anyone does
anything with any unseen cards in any way (Govern type effects, Vast
Wealth type effects, etc.), and I bet you can't either. Nobody ever,
ever does. Because it would be a massive total pain in the bum and a
waste of everyone's time and would result in even more tables timing
out.
Cheat for teh win!!!!!!@!!!@!!
Kevin M. wrote:
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> XZealot wrote:>>> Having played with this card for years, I witnessed
>>> a difference in ways that people use the card.
>>>
>>> One way was for the player to skim through his deck from the top
>>> down, while not revealing any cards to the other players, until he
>>> came to his first piece of equipment.
>>>
>>> The other ways was for the player to flip cards over until he
>>> revealed an equipment card, which he then equipped.
>>>
>>> Which one is the proper manner of play?>>
>> The former. The effect does not allow other players to see
>> any cards from the library (including the one retrieved).>
> What difference does it make if you see your own deck, since you are going
> to shuffle it anyway?
huh? he said the effect doesn't allow _other_ players to see YOUR deck.
obviously, you will have to look at your own deck, else you won't know
if a given card is an equipment card or not.
--
salem
(replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)