This is just another abuse to the Monocle of Clarity.
Suppose I ask a paradoxquestion
(like "Will you answer no to this question?")
what happens?
Since it can't be answered truthfully but still has
a y/n answer, does the game hang or what?
/Jacob "Ban the Monocle" Jonsson
--
===============================================================================
|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 | |_______|
===============================================================================
In article <3erc51$h...@columba.udac.uu.se>,
Jacob Jonsson <t93...@phekda.tdb.uu.se> wrote:
>
> This is just another abuse to the Monocle of Clarity.
>
> Suppose I ask a paradoxquestion
> (like "Will you answer no to this question?")
> what happens?
>
> Since it can't be answered truthfully but still has
> a y/n answer, does the game hang or what?
>
> /Jacob "Ban the Monocle" Jonsson
Absolutely NOTHING on the monocle says that you have to answer with yes
or no. Nothing. You just have to tell the truth. that's the way my
local Jyhad group gets around the k0mplikation of the Monocle, anyway.
See? No need to ban it...
--
Robin Lim - lke...@io.org / "Who? Me? I'm just a little elf!"
In article <3esli4$3...@news.acns.nwu.edu> jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Josh Hsu) writes:
>In article <3erc51$h...@columba.udac.uu.se>,>> Suppose I ask a paradoxquestion
>> (like "Will you answer no to this question?")>You have to answer the question truthfully if possible.
Nope. You must answer the question truthfully. The "if possible" phrase
pertains to actions in the future. Since the question can not be answered
truthfully, don't ask it.
Mike Moore
Josh Hsu (jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: In article <3erc51$h...@columba.udac.uu.se>,
: Jacob Jonsson <t93...@phekda.tdb.uu.se> wrote:
: >
: > This is just another abuse to the Monocle of Clarity.: >
: > Suppose I ask a paradoxquestion
: > (like "Will you answer no to this question?")
: > what happens?
: >
: > Since it can't be answered truthfully but still has
: > a y/n answer, does the game hang or what?
: >
: > /Jacob "Ban the Monocle" Jonsson: You have to answer the question truthfully if possible.
: In this case, it isn't possible, so you can answer whatever.
: Who decides what is possible or not is another question.
The if possible part is only in the future part.
Here is from the spoiler file:
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.
The sentence " He or She must answer truthfully." says nothing about
if possible. So I'm afraid your argument is weak.
Of course this is silly, but I want the Monocle Banned, and
if you can hang the game with it it must be removed, must it not?
If you think this is just way silly, ignore me, that is the best
way to get rid of the verval troublemaker.
Another outrageous question to the yes answer is
"Will you give me all your card right after the game?"
Silly, but not strict rules (but commonsence, goddammit)
against it.
/Jacob
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3etdch$12...@columba.udac.uu.se> t93...@saiph.tdb.uu.se (Jacob Jonsson) writes:
>Josh Hsu (jo...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3erc51$h...@columba.udac.uu.se>,
>: Jacob Jonsson <t93...@phekda.tdb.uu.se> wrote:
> Another outrageous question to the yes answer is
> "Will you give me all your card right after the game?"
> Silly, but not strict rules (but commonsence, goddammit)
> against it.
I'd answer that question "yes" since it's possible for me to comply.
Fortunately, there is nothing in the rules that prohibits physical
violence. :-)
Mike Moore
> 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.
Um, I don't see where is says you have to say the word yes or no. The
example in question could be handled by a "NEGATIVE". There are still
questions of course that would cause the problem, but then it's not
exactly a yes or no question if it cannot be answered TRUTHFULLY by a YES
or NO... (A better example might be "Will your answer to this
question be a lie" :)
McArthur E. Sandridge III (Buddy) (Insert standard terrorist
sandridg...@shands.ufl.edu disclaimer here! :)
ro...@sandridge.sth.ufl.edu (Linux PC! :)
afn0...@freenet.ufl.edu
Backup my harddrive? I can't find a reverese switch!!!
In article <3euvqi$i...@feedback.eng.umd.edu>,
Judith Cookson Grunberger <jcoo...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>Ouch! Be careful with this one. My friends and I pretty much play on a
>fair basis. If someone asks you a yes or no question, we will usually
>answer it if it doesn't damage our chances of losing the game. But I
>have an example of how the Monocle can be screwed.
>
>We were down to a three player game. I had just torpored my prey's
>Brujah Justicar with Roreca Quaid (heheheh), and my predator said "You
>know, I wouldn't object if you diablerized Don Cruez." I thought that a
>skill card wouldn't hurt any, so I said, "Do you *promise* to vote
>against a bloodhunt when my prey calls one." He promised. Swore up and
>down. Vowed on his mother's name. So when I diablerized Don Cruez, and
>my prey called a bloodhunt, he indeed voted against the bloodhunt.
>However, one of his *vampires* voted for the bloodhunt with a Dread Gaze
>or Surprise Influence or something, and that pushed it over. Bleh. I
>almost strangled him.
Your opponent also broke two separate rules in doing this. Since
Methuselahs do not get votes just for being in the game, the votes
from vampires are often the only votes a Methuselah has, and they
count as both the vampire voting and the Methuselah voting. So
right there he broke his promise. The second rule he broke is that
since the bloodhunt vote is not an action, no action modifiers or
reaction cards can be played during that vote, so Dread Gaze or
Surprise Influence are illegal to play during the bloodhunt.
You should be mad. He didn't play fair...
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
In article <3erc51$h...@columba.udac.uu.se> t93...@phekda.tdb.uu.se (Jacob Jonsson) writes:
> This is just another abuse to the Monocle of Clarity.> Suppose I ask a paradoxquestion
> (like "Will you answer no to this question?")
> what happens?> Since it can't be answered truthfully but still has
> a y/n answer, does the game hang or what?> /Jacob "Ban the Monocle" Jonsson
You know, this whole Ban the Monocle string smacks of the worst kind of Rules
Lawyering I've ever heard. There is no need to ban the Monocle if one uses
common sense when interpreting how it should be used. The Monocle says the
owner must ask a "Yes" or "No" question so the owner can't ask things like
"What cards do you have in your hand?." Clearly, this is intended to limit
the power of the Monocle, not give the owner the ability to lead the target
down a road of damning Yes and No answers.
Note also that the Monocle says that the target must answer truthfully, not
that the target must answer specifically "Yes" or "No". And IMO, the truthful
answer to the question "Will you answer "Yes" to my next question" is "I don't
know because I haven't heard the question yet."
I mean, if you want to be really ridiculous and interpret any incorrect,
non-yes or no answer as a declaration of forfeiture by the target when the
target can't possibly know the answer to your stupid question, you could grab
up a bunch of bloodstones in your hand and ask the target, "Am I holding 13
stones? Yes or no?"
Thanks,
The Bomb
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <tidleman.8...@sj.unisys.com>,
The Bomb <tidl...@sj.unisys.com> wrote:
// Note also that the Monocle says that the target must answer truthfully, not
// that the target must answer specifically "Yes" or "No". And IMO, the
// truthful answer to the question "Will you answer "Yes" to my next question"
// is "I don't know because I haven't heard the question yet."
Ok, by this logic the only reasonable answer to any monacle question is
"Perhaps". For starters it allows me to be totally truthful in
all cases (I cannot "know" that anything will be true or false,
I can only "precieve" that which seems true or false, even more so about
future events). Secondly, it totally invalidates your use of the card on me
(thus begining the strategically superior answer). Quite clearly not only
the question is bound to yes or no, but the answer has to be as well, else the
card is worthless.
You could remove meta-questions (ie. questions about questions), which
would fix some of the problems this card has (it's far too broad
and extremely unbalancing and shows that WotC has some pretty bad
play testers (as well as proof readers... terrible number of goofs
in Jyhad)). Problem is you can still Catch-22 other players with
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" type questions. My
favourite one of these is "Whenever a vampire attempts to bleed
you, will you attempt to block?". If you answer "No" you can
never attempt to block a bleed. If you answer "Yes" you must
always attempt to block any bleed (which is fine when I'm playing
a Brujah deck).
--
Brent Ross // "Skuld is nicer than // "Skuld is nicer than
bwr...@uwaterloo.ca // Medea." -- mlvanbie // mead." -- mtompset
bwr...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Brent Ross) writes:
>My favourite one of these is "Whenever a vampire attempts to bleed
>you, will you attempt to block?". If you answer "No" you can
>never attempt to block a bleed. If you answer "Yes" you must
>always attempt to block any bleed (which is fine when I'm playing
>a Brujah deck).
This is not the best question. 'No' simply means I won't block
*every* attempt to bleed me. I really won't block whenever you bleed,
just some of the time.
You're attempt to use the word whenever too broadly, to cover two
different things. - Will you always / Will you ever
In article <D2Aq5...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
The problem with that question is interpretation. You interprety your
question as meaning one thing, your victim interprets it as something else,
who is right?
The answer: both people, therefore whenever you have to uphold your answer to
a question, you only have to uphold your own interpretation(as long as its a
valid...another grey area if you ask me).
And for my 2 cents, yes the monocle was a really poor card, seems to me it was
one of those...(two minutes before the game is shipped)"wouldn't this be cool?
lets do it right now!" type of cards.
All of the debate concerning Monocle has begun to grate me somewhat. I feel
that the power of the monocle is to read the future, not CONTROL the future.
It is somewhat of a crystal ball for vampires. I can certainly understand
people wanting to play to win (I will reasily admit that I do myself) but
we are all playing a game, and it should be approached as such. It's
almost like someone playing a Vampire LARP and then lying about their skills
to everyone. What's the point?
Sorry, just had to vent...
Stephen
Stephen E Mynhier (smy...@hubcap.clemson.edu) wrote:
: All of the debate concerning Monocle has begun to grate me somewhat. I feel
[ quoted text not captured ]
YES!!! Finally someone who agrees with me! As for some of the other
posts here, not being forced to answer yes-or-no to the yes-or-no questions
isn't that big a problem because the only time uncertainty enters into the
answer is when you ask about the future. You can't be cute with answers about
the present. And it's hard to weasel out of a question about what you'll
attempt to do under certain circumstances.
Larrx...