Imagine the following situation:
John has a Fragment of Nod in play, and a Monocle of Clarity. Mary has
the Barrens in play, and and only 2 cards left in her library. John needs
pool to survive, and has a Blood Doll and a Minion Tap in his hand.
Realistically, to survive, he will either need to play a Blood Doll by
this round at the latest, or the Minion Tap by next round at the latest.
Playing Minion Tap this round would be the best option, but he is afraid
that Mary will play a Sudden Reversal if he does so. So to help him
decide what to do, he asks "If I play Minion Tap this turn, will you play
Sudden Reversal?"
Mary looks at her hand, and sees no SRs. However, she knows that she has
one more SR left in her deck, and a 50% chance of being able to get it by
means of the Barrens. She decides that, since she doesn't know the
answer, she is entitled to guess, and says "Yes".
John then taps the Fragment and Draws two cards, one of which is a second
Minion Tap. John decides that playing the Minion Tap on his next round
will give him better odds than playing the Blood Doll on this one, and
decides to play the first Minion Tap to force the SR out of Mary's hand.
Mary taps the Barrens, but fails to draw the SR.
Mary does not play SR, rendering her answer inaccurate. She says that she
is off the hook because one only must abide by ones answer "if possible".
Question is: Was Mary within her rights to say "yes" to John's question
when she did not know that the answer would be accurate? Had she said
"no" she would have been able to guarantee her answer.
Let's now make the question a little different, and imagine that there are
100 cards left in Mary's library, and she knows only 1 is an SR. It is
from her POV still possible that she be able to play an SR, but very
unlikely. Assuming a "yes" answer is permissable in the first case, would
it be permissable in this one as well?
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> John has [...] a Monocle of Clarity. [...] he asks "If I play Minion Tap> this turn, will you play Sudden Reversal?"
>> Mary looks at her hand, and sees no SRs. [but could draw one]> She decides that, since she doesn't know the
> answer, she is entitled to guess, and says "Yes".
Badly worded. Since she has to answer and the question involves the
future and both "yes" and "no" repesent possible truths (to the best of her
knowledge), she can answer with either.
She will then be bound to abide by that answer "if possible".
> John then [...]> decides to play the first Minion Tap to force the SR out of Mary's hand.
>
> Mary taps the Barrens, but fails to draw the SR.
>
> Mary does not play SR, rendering her answer inaccurate. She says that she
> is off the hook because one only must abide by ones answer "if possible".
She is correct, by clear card text.
> Question is: Was Mary within her rights to say "yes" to John's question
> when she did not know that the answer would be accurate? Had she said
> "no" she would have been able to guarantee her answer.
The answerer is not required to give answers that they can guarantee to
abide by. It they were, the "if possible" clause would not be present.
Mary's answer was valid, since it was true at the time (to the best of
Mary's knowledge, she could play SR by the time John plays his Minion Tap,
since she didn't know when that would be or what cards she would draw
before that time).
> Let's now make the question a little different, and imagine that there are
> 100 cards left in Mary's library, and she knows only 1 is an SR. It is
> from her POV still possible that she be able to play an SR, but very
> unlikely. Assuming a "yes" answer is permissable in the first case, would
> it be permissable in this one as well?
Yes, for the same reasons.
Perhaps John would be better off asking "do you have an SR in your hand
and, if so, will you play it if I play Minion Tap this turn?"
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
On Thu, 3 Dec 1998 ill...@postoffice.swbell.net wrote:
> Warning: this is NOT meant as a flame.
> It is a discussion group, so I'm discussing.
OK, but I was actually looking for a clarification from LSJ of the
official position, assuming he's not too sick of the subject.
> Lupus Australis wrote:
>
> > Imagine the following situation:
> >
> > John has a Fragment of Nod in play, and a Monocle of Clarity. Mary has
> > the Barrens in play, and and only 2 cards left in her library. John needs
> > pool to survive, and has a Blood Doll and a Minion Tap in his hand.
> > Realistically, to survive, he will either need to play a Blood Doll by
> > this round at the latest, or the Minion Tap by next round at the latest.
> > Playing Minion Tap this round would be the best option, but he is afraid
> > that Mary will play a Sudden Reversal if he does so. So to help him> > decide what to do, he asks "If I play Minion Tap this turn, will you play
> > Sudden Reversal?"
> >> > Mary looks at her hand, and sees no SRs. However, she knows that she has
> > one more SR left in her deck, and a 50% chance of being able to get it by> > means of the Barrens. She decides that, since she doesn't know the> > answer, she is entitled to guess, and says "Yes".
>> Then she was incorrect. The answer was based on a probability, not fact.
Umm, dude. I *do* have a reason for asking this question. The question
"Will you bleed me next turn?" cannot be answered "yes" based on fact,
only probabilities, as he cannot guarantee that his minions will be able
to act next turn. One might be able to guarantee a "no" answer by not
bleeding anybody for fear of bleed bounce (unless you hypothesize a Brujah
Frenzy type card that forces one to bleed involuntarily). The above
question is not too different from that example.
> > John then taps the Fragment and Draws two cards, one of which is a second
> > Minion Tap. John decides that playing the Minion Tap on his next round
> > will give him better odds than playing the Blood Doll on this one, and> > decides to play the first Minion Tap to force the SR out of Mary's hand.
>> So, you say he continued the action "after" the answer; correct?Forcing the
> Sudden was the intended strategy of the question.
What he wants to do most is Minion Tap. He plays the first to burn the SR
so he can play the second safely next time. But his precise reasons are
not too relevant to whether Mary's actions are legal.
> > Mary taps the Barrens, but fails to draw the SR.
> >
> > Mary does not play SR, rendering her answer inaccurate. She says that she
> > is off the hook because one only must abide by ones answer "if possible".
>> That's a little broad.
It's correct enough as it relates to the requirement to abide by the
answer if possible. The question is, does it meet the requirement of
truthfulness?
> If someone asks me if I will win the lottery; and I
> answer yes. That means it's a truthful answer because it's "possible"?
> The question explicitly stated "WILL you play a Sudden Reversal if..."
> I agree the circumstances dictated that action A results in response B.
> Had he played the Blood Doll instead... she would have been free in your
> example
> to play the Sudden Reversal had she drawn it. In turn... had he asked if she
> will play
> a Sudden if he playes a "Master" card then the conditions are different.>
> > Question is: Was Mary within her rights to say "yes" to John's question
> > when she did not know that the answer would be accurate? Had she said
> > "no" she would have been able to guarantee her answer.
> >
>> No. She was incorrect. She was "not" able to guarantee her answer.If she had
> the Book of Nod in the example... then she could have guaranteed
> the response given.>
> > Let's now make the question a little different, and imagine that there are
> > 100 cards left in Mary's library, and she knows only 1 is an SR. It is
> > from her POV still possible that she be able to play an SR, but very
> > unlikely. Assuming a "yes" answer is permissable in the first case, would
> > it be permissable in this one as well?
>> See the cited example of the lottery for the answer.
> This is all of course: IMHO
> Add to that; she sounds like a politician, or a lawyer.
Well, Jack, I am so gratified that you are supporting my general POV that
it is untruthful a give definite answers to a question where you cannot
guarantee the accuracy of your response. From your preface, I was
expecting some kind of flame :)
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> > John has [...] a Monocle of Clarity. [...] he asks "If I play Minion Tap> > this turn, will you play Sudden Reversal?"
> >> > Mary looks at her hand, and sees no SRs. [but could draw one]> > She decides that, since she doesn't know the
> > answer, she is entitled to guess, and says "Yes".
>> Badly worded. Since she has to answer and the question involves the
> future and both "yes" and "no" repesent possible truths (to the best of her
> knowledge), she can answer with either.
It may have been badly worded...but questions about the future are always
difficult to word without leaving a loophole open. That's why most questions
about the future tend to be about intent.
> Perhaps John would be better off asking "do you have an SR in your hand> and, if so, will you play it if I play Minion Tap this turn?"
Incorrect. That's two questions. Mary is only required to give one answer.
Noal
--
"DISCUSSION, n. A method of confirming others in their errors."
-Ambrose Bierce.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <743jkg$me9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Perhaps John would be better off asking "do you have an SR in your hand
> > and, if so, will you play it if I play Minion Tap this turn?"
>
> Incorrect. That's two questions. Mary is only required to give one answer.
But wait, I called tails! Or was it headstails?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Mike
--
Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign
[ quoted text not captured ]
Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> > > John has [...] a Monocle of Clarity. [...] he asks "If I play Minion Tap
> > > this turn, will you play Sudden Reversal?"
> > >
> > > Mary looks at her hand, and sees no SRs. [but could draw one]
> > > She decides that, since she doesn't know the
> > > answer, she is entitled to guess, and says "Yes".
> >
> > Badly worded. Since she has to answer and the question involves the
> > future and both "yes" and "no" repesent possible truths (to the best of her
> > knowledge), she can answer with either.
>
> It may have been badly worded...but questions about the future are always
The question wasn't badly worded. Lupus' statement taht Mary is
"entitled to guess" is badly worded.
> difficult to word without leaving a loophole open. That's why most questions
> about the future tend to be about intent.
Which are actually questions about the present. Present intent.
Which are different from questions about the future.
> > Perhaps John would be better off asking "do you have an SR in your hand
> > and, if so, will you play it if I play Minion Tap this turn?"
>
> Incorrect. That's two questions. Mary is only required to give one answer.
Incorrect. It is one question. And, as you say, Mary is required to give one
answer.
If she has no SR, she must answer "no".
If she has a SR and doesn't plan to cancel your pending Minion Tap, she must
answer "no".
If she has a SR and plans to cancel your Minion Tap if you play it this
turn, she must answer "yes".
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
> Dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:> > LSJ wrote:
> > > Perhaps John would be better off asking "do you have an SR in your hand
> > > and, if so, will you play it if I play Minion Tap this turn?"
> >
> > Incorrect. That's two questions. Mary is only required to give one answer.
>
> Incorrect. It is one question. And, as you say, Mary is required to give one
> answer.
>
> If she has no SR, she must answer "no".
> If she has a SR and doesn't plan to cancel your pending Minion Tap, she must
> answer "no".
> If she has a SR and plans to cancel your Minion Tap if you play it this
> turn, she must answer "yes".
Oops. Slipped into "intent" instead of future there. Those last two
should say:
If she has a SR but won't cancel your pending Minion Tap, she must
answer "no".
If she has a SR and will cancel your Minion Tap if you play it this
[ quoted text not captured ]
Please excuse me for not following the thread so flame away if this is
redundant.
The take I have always understood is that the answer you give 'must' be
followed and you would thereby be bound to that answer. In this case she could
not say for certain that she will play sudden reversal so thereby she must say
no committing her to that action (even if she were to draw the SR.)
It is incumbent upon the person with the monocle to ask those question that
can receive a yes or a no. Some examples:
Q:Will you attack me with harrod next turn?
A:No (this obligates you to not attacking the next turn with harrod)
Q:Will you bleed me next turn?
A:Yes (this obligates you to bleeding with someone next turn)
Q:Can you wake next turn if I tap you out?
A:No (then you may not wake even if a card come up that allows you to)
It was always easiest if we thought of the monocle predicting the future.
I am sure this will generate some criticism so blast away.
-Chris
Lupus Australis wrote:
> Imagine the following situation:
>
> John has a Fragment of Nod in play, and a Monocle of Clarity. Mary has
> the Barrens in play, and and only 2 cards left in her library. John needs
> pool to survive, and has a Blood Doll and a Minion Tap in his hand.
> Realistically, to survive, he will either need to play a Blood Doll by
> this round at the latest, or the Minion Tap by next round at the latest.
> Playing Minion Tap this round would be the best option, but he is afraid
> that Mary will play a Sudden Reversal if he does so. So to help him> decide what to do, he asks "If I play Minion Tap this turn, will you play
> Sudden Reversal?"
>> Mary looks at her hand, and sees no SRs. However, she knows that she has
> one more SR left in her deck, and a 50% chance of being able to get it by> means of the Barrens. She decides that, since she doesn't know the> answer, she is entitled to guess, and says "Yes".
>> John then taps the Fragment and Draws two cards, one of which is a second
> Minion Tap. John decides that playing the Minion Tap on his next round
> will give him better odds than playing the Blood Doll on this one, and
> decides to play the first Minion Tap to force the SR out of Mary's hand.
>> Mary taps the Barrens, but fails to draw the SR.
>
> Mary does not play SR, rendering her answer inaccurate. She says that she
> is off the hook because one only must abide by ones answer "if possible".
>> Question is: Was Mary within her rights to say "yes" to John's question
> when she did not know that the answer would be accurate? Had she said
> "no" she would have been able to guarantee her answer.
>> Let's now make the question a little different, and imagine that there are
> 100 cards left in Mary's library, and she knows only 1 is an SR. It is
> from her POV still possible that she be able to play an SR, but very
> unlikely. Assuming a "yes" answer is permissable in the first case, would
> it be permissable in this one as well?
>[ quoted text not captured ]
On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Christopher Chew wrote:
> Please excuse me for not following the thread so flame away if this is
> redundant.
>
> The take I have always understood is that the answer you give 'must' be
> followed and you would thereby be bound to that answer. In this case she could
> not say for certain that she will play sudden reversal so thereby she must say
> no committing her to that action (even if she were to draw the SR.)
I'm not sure you understand the consequences of your position.
> It is incumbent upon the person with the monocle to ask those question that
> can receive a yes or a no.
I would tend to agree, but this only works if you carry the position to
it's logical extreme, as I have tried to do.
> Some examples:
>
> Q:Will you attack me with harrod next turn?
> A:No (this obligates you to not attacking the next turn with harrod)
He would not be able to say "yes" by your standards, because of not being
able to guarantee that this would be possible. He cannot guarantee that
he will be ready, or that the necessary cards will still be in his hand.
If Harrod were a Brujah, you would not even be able to guarantee a "no"
answer because of the possibility of Brujah Frenzy.
> Q:Will you bleed me next turn?
> A:Yes (this obligates you to bleeding with someone next turn)
An outcome you cannot guarantee. The only possible answer would be "no"
by your standards, since you cannot guarantee that you will have ready
minions with at least 1 blood (not to mention the technicality of whether
you mean "bleed" or "attempt to bleed").
Thus, you could always make someone not bleed you by asking them if they
will.
> Q:Can you wake next turn if I tap you out?
> A:No (then you may not wake even if a card come up that allows you to)
Right. But while you can guarantee a "no" answer, can you guarantee a
"yes"? Suppose an effect causes you to discard a card at random, and you
lose that wake you were counting on. By your standards the respondent
must again always say "no" to this question.
> It was always easiest if we thought of the monocle predicting the future.
Well, that's the idea. It was never very good at predicting the future,
because we are talking about a real Jyhad game in which the future is in
fact unpredictable. It main infamy comes from its abuse to manipulate
events. That's the part i don't like.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Warning: this is NOT meant as a flame.
It is a discussion group, so I'm discussing.
Lupus Australis wrote:
> Imagine the following situation:
>
> John has a Fragment of Nod in play, and a Monocle of Clarity. Mary has
> the Barrens in play, and and only 2 cards left in her library. John needs
> pool to survive, and has a Blood Doll and a Minion Tap in his hand.
> Realistically, to survive, he will either need to play a Blood Doll by
> this round at the latest, or the Minion Tap by next round at the latest.
> Playing Minion Tap this round would be the best option, but he is afraid
> that Mary will play a Sudden Reversal if he does so. So to help him
> decide what to do, he asks "If I play Minion Tap this turn, will you play
> Sudden Reversal?"
>
> Mary looks at her hand, and sees no SRs. However, she knows that she has
> one more SR left in her deck, and a 50% chance of being able to get it by
> means of the Barrens. She decides that, since she doesn't know the
> answer, she is entitled to guess, and says "Yes".
Then she was incorrect. The answer was based on a probability, not fact.
> John then taps the Fragment and Draws two cards, one of which is a second> Minion Tap. John decides that playing the Minion Tap on his next round
> will give him better odds than playing the Blood Doll on this one, and
> decides to play the first Minion Tap to force the SR out of Mary's hand.
>
So, you say he continued the action "after" the answer; correct?Forcing the
Sudden was the intended strategy of the question.
> Mary taps the Barrens, but fails to draw the SR.>
> Mary does not play SR, rendering her answer inaccurate. She says that she
> is off the hook because one only must abide by ones answer "if possible".
That's a little broad. If someone asks me if I will win the lottery; and I
answeryes. That means it's a truthful answer because it's "possible"?
The question explicitly stated "WILL you play a Sudden Reversal if..."
I agree the circumstances dictated that action A results in response B.
Had he played the Blood Doll instead... she would have been free in your
example
to play the Sudden Reversal had she drawn it. In turn... had he asked if she
will play
a Sudden if he playes a "Master" card then the conditions are different.
> Question is: Was Mary within her rights to say "yes" to John's question> when she did not know that the answer would be accurate? Had she said
> "no" she would have been able to guarantee her answer.
>
No. She was incorrect. She was "not" able to guarantee her answer.If she had
the Book of Nod in the example... then she could have guaranteed
the response given.
> Let's now make the question a little different, and imagine that there are> 100 cards left in Mary's library, and she knows only 1 is an SR. It is
> from her POV still possible that she be able to play an SR, but very
> unlikely. Assuming a "yes" answer is permissable in the first case, would
> it be permissable in this one as well?
See the cited example of the lottery for the answer.
This is all of course: IMHO
Add to that; she sounds like a politician, or a lawyer.
Jack: The Truly Demented
ill...@swbell.net
Lupus Australis wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 1998 ill...@postoffice.swbell.net wrote:
>> > Warning: this is NOT meant as a flame.
> > It is a discussion group, so I'm discussing.
>> OK, but I was actually looking for a clarification from LSJ of the
> official position, assuming he's not too sick of the subject.
Oh. Sorry.
> > Lupus Australis wrote:
> >
> > > Imagine the following situation:
> > >
> > > John has a Fragment of Nod in play, and a Monocle of Clarity. Mary has
> > > the Barrens in play, and and only 2 cards left in her library. John needs
> > > pool to survive, and has a Blood Doll and a Minion Tap in his hand.
> > > Realistically, to survive, he will either need to play a Blood Doll by
> > > this round at the latest, or the Minion Tap by next round at the latest.
> > > Playing Minion Tap this round would be the best option, but he is afraid
> > > that Mary will play a Sudden Reversal if he does so. So to help him
> > > decide what to do, he asks "If I play Minion Tap this turn, will you play
> > > Sudden Reversal?"
> > >
> > > Mary looks at her hand, and sees no SRs. However, she knows that she has
> > > one more SR left in her deck, and a 50% chance of being able to get it by
> > > means of the Barrens. She decides that, since she doesn't know the
> > > answer, she is entitled to guess, and says "Yes".
> >
> > Then she was incorrect. The answer was based on a probability, not fact.
>> Umm, dude. I *do* have a reason for asking this question. The question
> "Will you bleed me next turn?" cannot be answered "yes" based on fact,
> only probabilities, as he cannot guarantee that his minions will be able
> to act next turn. One might be able to guarantee a "no" answer by not
> bleeding anybody for fear of bleed bounce (unless you hypothesize a Brujah
> Frenzy type card that forces one to bleed involuntarily). The above
> question is not too different from that example.
Ummm. Ok. Kinda figured there was an intent there.Agreed, there is a probability
in the example you cite. However;
once a declaration of intent is stated, (answering yes or no)
probability shifts. It then becomes classified as "future" fact.
The second example is one of the "if possible" codicils of
the card. The need to fear bleed bounce is irrelevant, as
the original intent was to honor the "foreseen future".
<snip>
> What he wants to do most is Minion Tap. He plays the first to burn the SR
> so he can play the second safely next time. But his precise reasons are
> not too relevant to whether Mary's actions are legal.
Since LSJ has already ruled on the legality in a later post; the answers I giveare
immaterial. IMHO to allow Mary to circumvent the intent is to have the
card rendered useless. By allowing a yes or no query to become an "Idunno"
<kinda sounds like a Bill Cosby act there>
destroys or at minimum; decays the card to the point of "wallpaper".
> > > Mary taps the Barrens, but fails to draw the SR.
> > >
> > > Mary does not play SR, rendering her answer inaccurate. She says that she
> > > is off the hook because one only must abide by ones answer "if possible".
> >
> > That's a little broad.
>> It's correct enough as it relates to the requirement to abide by the
> answer if possible. The question is, does it meet the requirement of
> truthfulness?
Ok. Seems I wasn't *that* far off in inserting the lawyer motif.In that regard,
nope... pure fantasy. The example as stated could
just as easily have been Mary already using her Sudden and still answer yes.
The "if possible" intent can be abused *that* much according to the
presentation.
<snip>
> Well, Jack, I am so gratified that you are supporting my general POV that
> it is untruthful a give definite answers to a question where you cannot
> guarantee the accuracy of your response. From your preface, I was
> expecting some kind of flame :)
Ahyep, agree on the truthfulness of the intent.However; by asking about intent,
the decision is made *then* to
discern the outcome, thereby eliminating, or reducing the question
of uncertainty.The "if possible" clause simply allows for Fate/Lady Luck
to have her fun *if possible*. LOL
BTW thanks for not stressing on the debate. The thread seems to have
been going for awhile and it seemed the most accesible to respond to.
LSJ is certainly on top of things, 'cause there wasn't much else by way
of unresolved topics. (Had to get my feet wet again). <g>
In article <3665D3AA...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, Christopher Chew
<c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> writes
>It was always easiest if we thought of the monocle predicting the future.
>>I am sure this will generate some criticism so blast away.
The only problem with this is that the Monocle does not mandate seeing
the future. You can ask questions about the here and now.
--
James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England)
Vampire: Elder Kindred Network
http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net