Monocle of Clarity (& questions about the deck contents)

> Monocle of Clarity > Unique equipment. > During your untap phase, if bearer is ready, you can ask any Methuselah a yes-or-no question pertaining to the game. He or she must answer yes or no truthfully. If the question pertains to the future, the answer is not binding > How should questions about deck contents using Monocle of Clarity be handled? Such as "Do you have one or more copies of card X in your deck?" Question was based on this discussion. Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > How should questions about deck contents using Monocle of Clarity be handled? > The same discussion in which LSJ says "Best to stick to things that can be known" (linked in the forum post) also provides the answer: [LSJ 20021122] > > LSJ wrote: > > So, anyway, if you 'honestly' don't know the answer to the yes or no > > question, what happens? Does it involve spontaneous combustion? That > > would be cool. > > Per previous post, answer to the best of your knowledge. > I feel honour-bound to point out that spontaneous combustion is hot, not cool.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > How should questions about deck contents using Monocle of Clarity be handled? > > > The same discussion in which LSJ says "Best to stick to things that can be known" (linked in the forum post) also provides the answer: > > [LSJ 20021122] > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > So, anyway, if you 'honestly' don't know the answer to the yes or no > > > question, what happens? Does it involve spontaneous combustion? That > > > would be cool. > > > > Per previous post, answer to the best of your knowledge. > > > I feel honour-bound to point out that spontaneous combustion is hot, not cool. > And I'm adding: A judge can't be called to check if the answer matches the decklist (or to count the copies of the card in the deck).

Is it required for a player to know what cards are in his deck? Am I required to write, or just read a deck list myself? And really, shouldent we just get rid of that card soon?

> Lönkka wrote: > > > Monocle of Clarity > > Unique equipment. > > During your untap phase, if bearer is ready, you can ask any Methuselah a yes-or-no question pertaining to the game. He or she must answer yes or no truthfully. If the question pertains to the future, the answer is not binding > > > How should questions about deck contents using Monocle of Clarity be handled? > > Such as "Do you have one or more copies of card X in your deck?" > > Question was based on this discussion. > The only questions which must be answered truthfully are those concerning the contens of the players hand, uncontrolled region and cards that are face down on other cards. Any other things he is free to lie about since he doesnt need to know them. i.e all things that the target player can verify himself "in game".

> Jesper wrote: > Is it required for a player to know what cards are in his deck? > No, why would it be? You might have borrowed the deck. You might have drafted the deck. You might not remember whether you decided on 5 Mind Rapes or 6. (Do you feel lucky, punk?) > Jesper wrote: > Am I required to write, or just read a deck list myself? > No. Decklists aren't required (in general terms). In situations where a tournament organiser/judge has asked for them, it's arguable that your best knowledge might include looking at the copy of it in your pocket. But if the judge has the only copy, not so much. > Jesper wrote: > And really, shouldent we just get rid of that card soon? > It's not adding any overhead, so I'm not sure why you'd need to get rid of it. "Do you have any reaction cards in your hand that could change the targe of a bleed? Yes/No." "Do you have a Delaying Tactics in hand? Yes/No." "Is that vampire with 9 blood on them in yuor uncontrolled region Arika? Yes/No." "Is the card on that Storage Annex a copy of Minion Tap? Yes/No." "Do you have any master cards in your hand that would allow you to move blood off your vampires into your pool or uncontrolled region on your next turn? Yes/No." None of these questions cause any problems. If a player chooses to ask questions like: "Looking at your hand, and the game state now, do you currently think you can oust me next turn? Yes/No." "Do you have any more Villeins in your deck? Yes/No." then the player will get a hazy answer.

> johannes wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > > > > Monocle of Clarity > > > Unique equipment. > > > During your untap phase, if bearer is ready, you can ask any Methuselah a yes-or-no question pertaining to the game. He or she must answer yes or no truthfully. If the question pertains to the future, the answer is not binding > > > > > How should questions about deck contents using Monocle of Clarity be handled? > > > > Such as "Do you have one or more copies of card X in your deck?" > > > > Question was based on this discussion. > > > The only questions which must be answered truthfully are those concerning the contens of the players hand, uncontrolled region and cards that are face down on other cards. Any other things he is free to lie about since he doesnt need to know them. i.e all things that the target player can verify himself "in game". > Card text doesn't limit questions to things in play like that. It says "pertaining to the game". As far as I see it, if a question is asked about deck content, player is required to truthfully answer a yes or no question. It does not necessarily have to be absolute universal truth just truth according to player. For example: Player X asks player Y: Do you have 8 deflections in your library? Player Y could say: "uhm, I don't really know... It is somewhere between 7 to 9, if I had to guess I would say 8". But since he is limited to a yes or no answer he will just reply: "Yes." since that is honestly his best answer. Of course, player Y could very well use this to his advantage by cheating. It's hard to stop that but on the other hand asking questions about the library is kind of stupid since players are not required to know the content of their deck.

> chaitan wrote: > Of course, player Y could very well use this to his advantage by cheating. It's hard to stop that but on the other hand asking questions about the library is kind of stupid since players are not required to know the content of their deck. > Essentially all questions about things the player can't currently verify are "To the best of my knowledge, yes" or "To the best of my knowledge, no." At which point, it really is just a case of 'questioner beware'.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Jesper wrote: > > And really, shouldent we just get rid of that card soon? > > > It's not adding any overhead, so I'm not sure why you'd need to get rid of it. > The same reason that Madness of the Bard is banned (I guess), its language dependent, and in a very complex game where you can put together very complex questions which might easily be misunderstood.

> Jesper wrote: > The same reason that Madness of the Bard is banned (I guess), its language dependent, and in a very complex game where you can put together very complex questions which might easily be misunderstood. > V:TES is language dependent. If a player cannot understand a question asked in the local language and provide an answer, they're not going to be able to play V:TES very well at all, because you very often need to do that frequently during play. "How much blood does Angus have?" "Is that Catherine du Bois that's untapped?" "Can you bounce this bleed to [the table threat]?" As a judge, I can walk over to a table, look at someone's hand and say "Yes, this player has a Strike: Combat Ends effect in his hand" or "No, this player does not have any master cards in her hand." If the player asks a somewhat convoluted question, there would be no problem in asking a third-party (presumably a judge) over to verify what was being asked and (if it's verifiable) what the answer is. Madness of the Bard provided a bizarre parlour game, which penalised people for not being fluent in a particular language, and which was impossible to enforce with any rigour. Certainly, my interpretation will differ radically from someone else's. Do eye rhymes count? Do Irish rhymes count? (Note that if you prolong the argument about this, you're proving just how unenforcable it was because everyone's opinion differs.) This is totally unlike being able to give a simple Yes/No answer.

But doesn't the card overrule the rules of the game? So if you don't know wether you have the card, you would have to look? Since this cards requires you to know what is in the deck? And the the deck would have to be part of the game otherwise stuff like magic of the smith and vast wealth becomes rather weird. - I have bitten the mighy judge-beard.

> TunFiskeMad wrote: > But doesn't the card overrule the rules of the game? > The card doesn't contradict the rules on being unable to look at the contents of your deck. It just requires you to respond (to the best of your knowledge) truthfully. > TunFiskeMad wrote: > So if you don't know wether you have the card, you would have to look? Since this cards requires you to know what is in the deck? And the the deck would have to be part of the game otherwise stuff like magic of the smith and vast wealth becomes rather weird. > Your deck is part of the game, but you can't go leafing through it without explicit card text. Library searchers don't require you to know what's in your deck - you can search for a card and fail to find it (either because it's not there, or you overlook it, or you choose not to find it). [LSJ 20031213] > > LSJ wrote: > > Still, i read that part as a must do (to search.....for) so i can't see > > what makes optional the *search...for* the actual card, if it's > > really in the deck i'm searching for. > > Searching is not the same as finding. > You must search. If you fail to find (even if the card was in there), you > fail to find. > > > Am i allowed to not find if there's the actual card in there > > vith coroner contacts, summon the serpent, the summoning, and so on ? > > Yes. > This has the happy advantage of not incurring problems with accusations of cheating (necessitating a search by a judge). You can also use it if you just want an excuse to shuffle your deck (e.g. you've been recycling cards onto the bottom with Waste Management Operation).

> TunFiskeMad wrote: > But doesn't the card overrule the rules of the game? > Only when it *explicitely* overrule them. Monocle does not say explicitely that you can look at your deck, so you still can't.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > Library searchers don't require you to know what's in your deck - you can search for a card and fail to find it (either because it's not there, or you overlook it, or you choose not to find it). > Or because you draw your Bowl of Convergence when replacing your Magic of the Smith To go back to the original question, are there that many situations where you want to know something about your opponent's deck rather than his hand? The original example was to ask first for an Archon Investigation in the deck, then Bounce/wakes in hand every turn. You could do that better by asking every turn: "Do you have either an AI or (a bounce and a wake) in your hand?" The only case I can think of is when deciding whether to block a stealth-bleed or not. The decision depends more on the stealth ratio of the deck than on your predator's current hand. But when you play the Monocle, it's usually for your prey, not your predator.

> Non-existant user wrote: > To go back to the original question, are there that many situations where you want to know something about your opponent's deck rather than his hand? > You want to work out whether a deck is a turbo deck or not, and this is the first round of a tournament (or a deck change in a multi-deck tournament), and you've got Monocle out quickly. For example, Una has just come out and you're pondering what to do with your Pentex Subversion.

Fair enough. But If you get asked a question about your library what is a legal answer? - I have bitten the mighy judge-beard.

> TunFiskeMad wrote: > But If you get asked a question about your library what is a legal answer? > Yes or No. The answer should be truthful, to tbe best of your knowledge.

I'm going with Pascal's ruling then... > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > How should questions about deck contents using Monocle of Clarity be handled? > > > The same discussion in which LSJ says "Best to stick to things that can be known" > Indeed, but that comment doesn't say that you aren't able to do so, just that it is less hassle if you don't. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > You can also use it if you just want an excuse to shuffle your deck (e.g. you've been recycling cards onto the bottom with Waste Management Operation). > If the judge does it, like Pascal suggested, without showing teh cards to players there is no need to shuffle. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > TunFiskeMad wrote: > > But If you get asked a question about your library what is a legal answer? > > > Yes or No. The answer should be truthful, to tbe best of your knowledge. > Truthful indeed, but then you might run across world class players who are just spontanious and unexpicably having a brainfart: > Azazel wrote: > I would just answer I don't remember to the first question. Or just say yes I do, you can always remember incorrectly. I don't think you have to remember exact contents of your deck, though I might be wrong. > Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > You can also use it if you just want an excuse to shuffle your deck (e.g. you've been recycling cards onto the bottom with Waste Management Operation). > > > If the judge does it, like Pascal suggested, without showing teh cards to players there is no need to shuffle. > Errrr.... In what way does a judge get involved with me searching my library with Magic of the Smith for a Bowl of Convergence (which isn't there) and then me shuffling the library afterwards? > Lönkka wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > > > TunFiskeMad wrote: > > > But If you get asked a question about your library what is a legal answer? > > > > > > > > Yes or No. The answer should be truthful, to tbe best of your knowledge. > > > Truthful indeed, but then you might run across world class players who are just spontanious and unexpicably having a brainfart: > Sure. That's the risk you run with asking questions about potentially unknown information. > Azazel wrote: > I would just answer I don't remember to the first question. > That's not a legal answer. Yes or No. Please don't make your own private rules up.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > TunFiskeMad wrote: > > But If you get asked a question about your library what is a legal answer? > > > Yes or No. The answer should be truthful, to tbe best of your knowledge. > I know there is no power curve broken in the wrong direction, but this card just seem so ripe for abuse if played against that I don't really see the point of it. - I have bitten the mighy judge-beard.

> TunFiskeMad wrote: > I know there is no power curve broken in the wrong direction, but this card just seem so ripe for abuse if played against that I don't really see the point of it. > What sort of abuse are you seeing? I can ask you easily verifiable questions, like the contents of your hand, uncontrolled region, or other visible-to-you-but-hidden-from-me areas of the game. You have to answer truthfully, and a judge can check. I can ask you questions that you might or might not know the answer to, and you have to answer truthfully (as best you understand it) but might be wrong. If I do that and I don't like the answer, that's my fault.

Well like people "forgetting" what they are playing - yes there is occasion where you would want to know. Interpretation of the question asked might vary. Yes you can ask clear cut questions like: do you have a specific card in hand, but going beyond that you might get "lawyered" if bad at the language or missing a loophole on a card. - I have bitten the mighy judge-beard.

> TunFiskeMad wrote: > Well like people "forgetting" what they are playing - yes there is occasion where you would want to know. > > Interpretation of the question asked might vary. > > Yes you can ask clear cut questions like: do you have a specific card in hand, but going beyond that you might get "lawyered" if bad at the language or missing a loophole on a card. > That's not new with Monocle of Clarity. At any point in the game, a player might ask a misleading question, strike a misleading deal, or just outright lie to you. If the problem is "Talking is hard", then that's a problem that needs to be fixed by the player concerned, Monocle or no.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > That's not new with Monocle of Clarity. At any point in the game, a player might ask a misleading question, strike a misleading deal, or just outright lie to you. > Well lying to you concerning deals is allowed, but you are not allowed to lie about the answer to the monocle question. The question now is how do you interept willfully forgetting the correct answer? > jamesatzephyr wrote: > If the problem is "Talking is hard", then that's a problem that needs to be fixed by the player concerned, Monocle or no. > Which is all fine and dandy when we are talking about the "game" - but when we talk about mechanical effects in the game, they shouldn't be language dependent. - I have bitten the mighy judge-beard.

> TunFiskeMad wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > That's not new with Monocle of Clarity. At any point in the game, a player might ask a misleading question, strike a misleading deal, or just outright lie to you. > > > Well lying to you concerning deals is allowed, but you are not allowed to lie about the answer to the monocle question. > If I ask a confusing question and a player with a poor grasp of the language misunderstands me, that's my fault. It would be entirely acceptable, however, for a player to ask for the question to be re-stated more simply. > TunFiskeMad wrote: > The question now is how do you interept willfully forgetting the correct answer? > Psychic probes. Alternatively, if this is a real problem, ask a different question where it won't be a problem. > TunFiskeMad wrote: > Which is all fine and dandy when we are talking about the "game" - but when we talk about mechanical effects in the game, they shouldn't be language dependent. > So the player asks for the question to be stated more simply. Or the asking player states it very simply. Problem solved.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > TunFiskeMad wrote: > > Well like people "forgetting" what they are playing - yes there is occasion where you would want to know. > > > > Interpretation of the question asked might vary. > > > > Yes you can ask clear cut questions like: do you have a specific card in hand, but going beyond that you might get "lawyered" if bad at the language or missing a loophole on a card. > > > That's not new with Monocle of Clarity. At any point in the game, a player might ask a misleading question, strike a misleading deal, or just outright lie to you. > > If the problem is "Talking is hard", then that's a problem that needs to be fixed by the player concerned, Monocle or no. > As James mentioned, you're best off with simple, easily verifiable questions. "Do you have any reaction cards in your hand that could change the targe of a bleed?" is clear. "Are you currently able to bounce my bleed?" (from the original thread) is not a good question. 1. "Currently" is an ambiguous turn. It is during the untap phase so I don't have any cards that let me do that during the untap. Even "this turn" is potentially vague since things may change during the turn. Asking about cards in hand (and facedown cards such as on Shilmulo Tarot) seems to be your best option. 2. Don't get cute with slang. "Bounce? Flick? I have no idea what that means. Oh you meant a card that *redirects a bleed*. Too bad you didn't ask the right question! Maybe you can try again next turn?" pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> I have no idea what that means. Oh you meant a card that *redirects a bleed*. Too bad you didn't ask the right question! Maybe you can try again next turn?" > Aside from the "currently" asshattery, he did actually ask the right question. He didn't ask "do you have a card in your hand that allows you to bounce my bleed?" (which would still be a perfectly fine question). He asked "are you able to bounce my bleed". If you don't understand the slang (or, realistically, are just being a prick) you cannot answer the question properly and thus should ask for clarification. Answering the question with no is cheating. If I'm asking you if you have a Grapple in your hand and you'd say no and then promptly produce an Immortal Grapple, I'd call a judge. I know you will now start arguing that there is no card named Grapple and that even though Immortal Grapple is a Grapple card, it's actually that - a grapple card and not a grapple. If you don't understand the question (or more likely, are looking for loopholes to lie), then ask for a clarification.

> Izaak wrote: > Aside from the "currently" asshattery, he did actually ask the right question. He didn't ask "do you have a card in your hand that allows you to bounce my bleed?" (which would still be a perfectly fine question). He asked "are you able to bounce my bleed". > "Bounce" isn't a proper game term. Just because you use it as shorthand for a specific meaning, doesn't mean that other people will know what you are referring to. I've seen some players say that they "hug" you (instead of Immortal Grappling you). If someone asks you if you have "hugging" cards in your hand, some people might rightfully be confused. Same with the term "flick" (which sometimes people use instead of "bounce"). Or how about "lockdown" or "paralyzing" (no longer a game term)? If someone asks me if I have paralyzing cards in my hand, I'm not sure what he means! Does he refer to Stake & Rowan Ring only? Or does he mean something else? Not everyone is familiar with backstory, so when asking Monocle questions you shouldn't be using Warlocks for Tremere, fleshcrafters for Tzimisce (would Matteus or anyone with count?), Blue Bloods for Ventrue. You shouldn't ask for cards that require "cub scout" or "bear face" or whatever (simply say ABOMBWE). "Are you able to bounce my bleed" is a different question than "do you have cards in your hand that can change the target of a bleed" which is different than "do you have cards in your hand that can change the target of *my* bleed." In the case of the last two questions, if I ask my predator or someone cross-table that question and he has My Enemy's Enemy, it would be yes in one case but no in another (he can change the target of a bleed, but not the target of *my* bleed). If you have a hand full of Deflections, but all your minions are tapped (or have no blood), then the likely answer seems "no." Though if someone cross-table Babbles you, you would be able to then Deflect. (And on that topic, if someone asks me if I can "Deflect a bleed," and I don't have Deflection but I do have Redirection of Telepathic Misdirection, then I can rightly say no, I can't DEFLECT a bleed). If you have Deflection and you are all tapped out, but you have a Second Tradition, it's tricky because being able to Deflect requires an action you can attempt to block, and then you need to fail to block it after playing Second Tradition. It's potentially unclear whether you are *able* to Deflect in this case. If I have a 9-cap with 2 blood and Lost in Translation, I can "change the target" of a bleed by your Anson but not by your Alexandra. So if you simply ask whether it constitutes "able to bounce my bleed," it's unclear because it depends on who you are bleeding with. > If you don't understand the slang (or, realistically, are just being a prick) you cannot answer the question properly and thus should ask for clarification. Answering the question with no is cheating. > As the player with the Monocle of Clarity and choosing to use it, I think it is the onus on that player to come up with the proper question. Just like how players should be held more responsible for knowing the card text of cards in their own deck. (Rarely, you will see players include old versions of cards, and then claim they didn't know that they were errata'ed. Sometimes it might be a genuine mistake, but when certain tournament-level players consistently do it over and over again, you begin to wonder....) > If I'm asking you if you have a Grapple in your hand and you'd say no and then promptly produce an Immortal Grapple, I'd call a judge. I know you will now start arguing that there is no card named Grapple and that even though Immortal Grapple is a Grapple card, it's actually that - a grapple card and not a grapple. > Sometimes people use Grapple as meaning the specific card "Immortal Grapple." It could also refer to any card with Grapple in the title. Or any card with the Grapple trait. If there are multiple valid game interpretations, then I would assume that fulfilling any of them (title, trait) would require a "yes" answer. "Bounce" is different because it is not a proper game term. Grapple is a trait, and appears in card titles. If someone asks me if I have a Grapple in my hand (and he's playing a weenie Presence deck with lots of Majesty and is probably referring to just Immortal Grapple) and I don't have an Immortal Grapple but I do have a Shoulder Drop in my hand, I can (and should) answer yes. I do have a "Grapple" card in my hand. It was a poor question if he meant to ask if I had an *Immortal Grapple* in my hand. Before Third Edition, Ventrue Investment was not a card with the "Investment" trait. So if someone asked you if you had an Investment, what would have been the proper answer? If someone asks me about Gargoyles in my hand or uncontrolled region, it could include Gargoyle vampires, Razor Bat / Stone Dog / Rock Cat (Gargoyle creatures but not Gargoyle vampires), or Gargoyle Slave (Gargoyle in the title but not a Gargoyle vampire or a Gargoyle creature. Has neither the Gargoyle *or* Slave traits). I would assume that "Presence cards" refers to the Presence skill card and possibly Disarming Presence. I wouldn't assume that he means *any* cards that require Presence. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> echiang wrote: > I would assume that "Presence cards" refers to the Presence skill card and possibly Disarming Presence. I wouldn't assume that he means *any* cards that require Presence. > I disagree here. The name of the Disciplines that are required for a card are "card text" that have been replaced by symbols for ease of understanding. So, imo, if I'm asked if I have a Protean card in my hand and I have an Earth Meld, I must say "yes". The same way Minions have Clan symbols. Ferox doesn't have "Gargoyle" written on him. He has Same thing, rule-wise, I think. And you agree with Gargoyle also including Gargoyle vampires (as do I), so stands to reason Presence cards also include Treachery. I agree with you in the Master: Discipline cards too. So we basically need to use game terms or game effects that are card text or in the rules. And to get a 100% truthful answer, we need to ask something about: - Hand - Uncontrolled Region - Research Region - Face down cards in the ready region - Cards that the player has seen for sure and are on his deck (after Marrakesh Codex, Maris Streck's less used ability, etc) Does this sums it up?

> And on that topic, if someone asks me if I can "Deflect a bleed," and I don't have Deflection but I do have Redirection of Telepathic Misdirection, then I can rightly say no, I can't DEFLECT a bleed > Yeh sure, and by doing so you're just being a dick. > As the player with the Monocle of Clarity and choosing to use it, I think it is the onus on that player to come up with the proper question. > It's ALSO up to the guy answering to actually understand the question in the first place instead of making up a question of his own and answering that.

> Brum wrote: > I disagree here. > The name of the Disciplines that are required for a card are "card text" that have been replaced by symbols for ease of understanding. > So, imo, if I'm asked if I have a Protean card in my hand and I have an Earth Meld, I must say "yes". > I think it's a bit hazier here. I wouldn't say Alia God's Messenger or Fourth Cycle are Gehenna cards, even though they require Gehenna cards. I wouldn't say that the Sword of Troile is a Presence card, even though it gives you superior . In the Grapple case, it's more straightforward because there is a trait and a title issue. When you start including different card types (vampires) and assumptions (requirements) it gets more complicated. Going back to Gargoyle, besides : A. Gargoyle vampires B. Gargoyle trait (for allies/retainers) C. Gargoyle title (Gargoyle Slave) you also have to decide whether: D. Library cards that require Gargoyle also count. If so, that would include the Gargoyle clan cards. But how about the Tremere/!Tremere cards that can only be used if there is a Gargoyle around? Reindoctrination, Defender of the Haven, Potio Marytrium, and Soul of the Earth require a Gargoyle target (even if the formal requirements of the action don't require Gargoyle). Should they be included as well under "Gargoyle cards"? You also have cases where what are essentially clan cards don't technically require the clan. Carnivale (you can play it on someone else's Toreador), Bastille Opera House, and Eternals of Sirius are examples. How about Feral Spirit? Is it an Ahrimanes card? A Gangrel card? A Gangrel Antitribu card? All three? Are Feral Spirit and Visionquest considered Spiritus cards? Is Blooding by the Code a Valeren card? pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Izaak wrote: > > > And on that topic, if someone asks me if I can "Deflect a bleed," and I don't have Deflection but I do have Redirection of Telepathic Misdirection, then I can rightly say no, I can't DEFLECT a bleed > > > Yeh sure, and by doing so you're just being a dick. > Why is that? Maybe the guy is only concerned about Deflection (because he can Hide the Mind and I am Legion any Auspex cards and he's older and you only have inferior so you can't Redirect). Maybe he cares specifically because all the other cards tap you while superior Deflection doesn't. So by answering "yes" when you have a Telepathic Misdirection, you are actually being untruthful and he might complain to the judge about it. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

I asked LSJ during the NAC in Montreal. He told me that both player must agree on the sense of the question, so there's no "trap" about the meaning of words. Eg. "- Do you have a presence card in hand? - You mean a presence skill card or a card requiring presence? - A card requiring presence. I mean, at least one of them." Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Pascal wrote: > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > > > Lönkka wrote: > > > How should questions about deck contents using Monocle of Clarity be handled? > > > > > > > > The same discussion in which LSJ says "Best to stick to things that can be known" (linked in the forum post) also provides the answer: > > > > [LSJ 20021122] > > > > > > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > > So, anyway, if you 'honestly' don't know the answer to the yes or no > > > > question, what happens? Does it involve spontaneous combustion? That > > > > would be cool. > > > > > > Per previous post, answer to the best of your knowledge. > > > > > > > > I feel honour-bound to point out that spontaneous combustion is hot, not cool. > > > And I'm adding: A judge can't be called to check if the answer matches the decklist (or to count the copies of the card in the deck). > Is there any way to ascertain if the player is telling the truth? Without such a test, these rulings de facto allow players to lie about the contents of their library and crypt. It certainly encourages askers to "stick to what can be known." Maybe it works, but it's too informal for my taste, anyway. Instead of giving such wriggle room, why not just explicitly say that Monocle questions can only refer to cards that the Methusaleh currently has access to? Or rule that inaccessible library and crypt cards (barring Tusk, etc.) fall under the "future" clause of the card? That's a fairly neat solution. Also, the guideline that LSJ told Ankha about is very good (thanks again for clarifications, Ankha!). Surely that should be in the official rulings page.

> Izaak wrote: > > If you don't understand the slang (or, realistically, are just being a prick) you cannot answer the question properly and thus should ask for clarification. Answering the question with no is cheating. > > If you don't understand the question (or more likely, are looking for loopholes to lie), then ask for a clarification. > Im not allowed to ask for clarifications, only to answerr, to the best of my ability what I do belive you asked me about yes/no. All the exampels Eric comes with a perfect exampels on why this is just stupid /Jesper

> Aaron wrote: > Is there any way to ascertain if the player is telling the truth? > If you ask questions about things that one can ascertain the truth about, then yes. Otherwise, no. If you ask about something that you feel the need a judge to check, you can have them check that. Most of the time, however, you'll ask about something that will become evident soon anyway. For example, if I ask "do you have an Archon Investigation in your hand?", you say "no", and then bleed you for 9, whether or not you are lying is mostly immaterial--either you are telling the truth, or you are lying and have an Archon Investigation in your hand, but if you play it, you'll be penalized for cheating (someone can certainly say "No" when they have one, and then play some cards trying to block, and then claim to have drawn into it, but it is easy enough to have a judge check the player's hand when you ask them). If you ask questions that can't be verified, you are going to have no way to verify. So only ask things that can be verified--what is in someone's hand, what vampires are face down, what card is in that Storage Annex. As questions about the future aren't binding (by card text), asking about deals or how someone will react to something is pointless. Most of the issues of this card solve themselves.

This is a classic example of a card that is only as good as the player using it.

> bakija wrote: > > > Aaron wrote: > > Is there any way to ascertain if the player is telling the truth? > > > If you ask questions about things that one can ascertain the truth about, then yes. Otherwise, no. > > If you ask about something that you feel the need a judge to check, you can have them check that. Most of the time, however, you'll ask about something that will become evident soon anyway. For example, if I ask "do you have an Archon Investigation in your hand?", you say "no", and then bleed you for 9, whether or not you are lying is mostly immaterial--either you are telling the truth, or you are lying and have an Archon Investigation in your hand, but if you play it, you'll be penalized for cheating (someone can certainly say "No" when they have one, and then play some cards trying to block, and then claim to have drawn into it, but it is easy enough to have a judge check the player's hand when you ask them). > > If you ask questions that can't be verified, you are going to have no way to verify. So only ask things that can be verified--what is in someone's hand, what vampires are face down, what card is in that Storage Annex. As questions about the future aren't binding (by card text), asking about deals or how someone will react to something is pointless. Most of the issues of this card solve themselves. > The card doesn't say that you can only ask questions that fall under the category of "verifiable" as you've described here. Nor do any rulings, and there are no rulings that describe what is verifiable AFAIK. Since it doesn't preclude it you can legally ask those kinds of questions, mainly about the contents of another player's library. The Monocle also requires that the player answer truthfully. Since as of a few hours ago, judges cannot check players' libraries, players can answer untruthfully and explain it by saying "I forgot" (or my favorite from government hearings: "I do not recall".) However, answering untruthfully is cheating, because it goes against the card text. Like I said, I don't like these kind of formulations, but I may be in the minority. I think that players shouldn't have a legal way to cheat like this. I think the ruling could be cleaned up by explicitly limiting truthful answers to questions about "verifiable" cards.

> Aaron wrote: > I think the ruling could be cleaned up by explicitly limiting truthful answers to questions about "verifiable" cards. > I agree. Actually I though there was such a ruling. Since nobody found it, here's something else for the new Rulings, I think.

Maybe the cleanest solution would be to rule that cards in the library and crypt and those removed from play do not "pertain to the game" for the purpose of the Monocle of Clarity. Monocle of Clarity Unique equipment. During your untap phase, if bearer is ready, you can ask any Methuselah a yes-or-no question pertaining to the game. He or she must answer yes or no truthfully. If the question pertains to the future, the answer is not binding.

> echiang wrote: > Just like how players should be held more responsible for knowing the card text of cards in their own deck. (Rarely, you will see players include old versions of cards, and then claim they didn't know that they were errata'ed. Sometimes it might be a genuine mistake, but when certain tournament-level players consistently do it over and over again, you begin to wonder....) > If you are not responsible for knowing the contents of your librery, how can you be responsible for knowing the card text of said content? - I have bitten the mighy judge-beard.

> TunFiskeMad wrote: > > > echiang wrote: > > Just like how players should be held more responsible for knowing the card text of cards in their own deck. (Rarely, you will see players include old versions of cards, and then claim they didn't know that they were errata'ed. Sometimes it might be a genuine mistake, but when certain tournament-level players consistently do it over and over again, you begin to wonder....) > > > If you are not responsible for knowing the contents of your library, how can you be responsible for knowing the card text of said content? > It depends on the context. When it comes to high-level tournaments, say Continental Championships, the vast majority of players should know what deck they're playing (and likely have spent a fair amount of time deciding and/or tweaking it). Similarly, at that level of play, there should be a higher expectation of people knowing what cards do. That's not to say that you need to have the exact contents of your deck memorized, but in most circumstances there should have a fair understanding of what their deck does and what the cards in their deck do. If a player is spending a disproportionate amount of time reading the cards in their own hand, there's a higher chance that something odd is happening (like stalling), as opposed to a situation where a new player is carefully reading the cards in their hand. When it comes to casual tournaments, you are more likely to have cases where people simply grab random decks or borrow decks. You're also likely to have more novices. You have similar issues in the case of "poor play" which may lead to "not playing to win." In a casual tournament, just *maybe* the guy really doesn't know what his deck is supposed to do. But if someone at a Continental Championship is pulling odd shenanigans and is telling the judge that's because he has no idea what his deck does, that's a bit harder to believe. So...you went through the hassle of qualifying, flew all the way across the continent, and now you're claiming that you don't know how to play your own deck? It's not impossible but certainly unlikely. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > > > > jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > You can also use it if you just want an excuse to shuffle your deck (e.g. you've been recycling cards onto the bottom with Waste Management Operation). > > > > > If the judge does it, like Pascal suggested, without showing teh cards to players there is no need to shuffle. > > > Errrr.... > > In what way does a judge get involved with me searching my library with Magic of the Smith for a Bowl of Convergence (which isn't there) and then me shuffling the library afterwards? > No, what I meant was when using Monocle, just have the Judge come over and go through the library of the player who is having a memory lapse. The Judge goes through the deck without showing the cards to the players. Since players haven't seen any of the cards in the deck there is no need to shuffle it. You can get pretty anal with Monocle asking all sorts of trick questions, but I really don't think that asking if a player has a copy of certain card in his deck is a one. Apparently YMMW Finnish Politics!

> Aaron wrote: > The card doesn't say that you can only ask questions that fall under the category of "verifiable" as you've described here. Nor do any rulings, and there are no rulings that describe what is verifiable AFAIK. > All of this is true. But as a lot of things that you *could* ask about aren't verifiable ("Do you like sandwiches?"), if one is using the Monocle in a game, one's best plan is to only ask about things that are verifiable. As such, these are self correcting problems. > Since it doesn't preclude it you can legally ask those kinds of questions, mainly about the contents of another player's library. > Sure. But those answers aren't particularly verifiable, any more than me wondering if you like sandwiches. So if I'm using the Monocle, I'll ask about things that can be easily verified. As that way, I know I'm getting an actual answer. > The Monocle also requires that the player answer truthfully. Since as of a few hours ago, judges cannot check players' libraries, players can answer untruthfully and explain it by saying "I forgot" (or my favorite from government hearings: "I do not recall".) However, answering untruthfully is cheating, because it goes against the card text. > Sure. I realize that this is a wonky corner of the game. But really, the best plan is to self-correct. Only ask questions that can be easily verified. Not by virtue of rulings, but by virtue of it really being the only reasonable way to use the card. > Like I said, I don't like these kind of formulations, but I may be in the minority. I think that players shouldn't have a legal way to cheat like this. I think the ruling could be cleaned up by explicitly limiting truthful answers to questions about "verifiable" cards. > You could do that. Or you could simply let the card fix itself, which, generally speaking, it tends to do.

Sorry but this "i dont have to know what is in my librery" defense and willfuly forgetting just seems wrong. I understand from a practical point of view that the judge don't want to look through the library. But what if i lay down my hand when it's not my turn and claim i've forgotten what is in it, am I then required to look at it? Yes this is juvenile and cheeky, but none the less... - I have bitten the mighy judge-beard.

We can't assume players have an exact memory. You can try this during your games: When you play with Heart of Nizchetus, try remembering which cards you put under your library and in which order. And that's a question that is more valid than "Are there at least 16 cards that give you +1 stealth or more in your deck ?" .

> Lönkka wrote: > No, what I meant was when using Monocle, just have the Judge come over and go through the library of the player who is having a memory lapse. > > The Judge goes through the deck without showing the cards to the players. Since players haven't seen any of the cards in the deck there is no need to shuffle it. > If this happens every turn, either the table is going to time out, or the game will get extended (causing everyone at the tournament to have to wait for this one delinquent table). pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Pascal wrote: > We can't assume players have an exact memory. > > You can try this during your games: When you play with Heart of Nizchetus, try remembering which cards you put under your library and in which order. And that's a question that is more valid than "Are there at least 16 cards that give you +1 stealth or more in your deck ?" . > There is a difference between "do you have at least 16 cards that give you +1 stealth or more in your deck ?" and "Do you have any Archon Investigations in your deck?"

Is there a difference between "Do you have 1 Claws of the Dead in your deck ?" , "Do you have 1 Wolf Claws in your deck?" and "Do you have 1 Archon Investigation in your deck?" when asking a player with an inferior protean deck ? What about "Do you have 1 Spying Mission?" when the player has a DEM obf deck? I will not categorize cards (obviously, you're more interesting in things that can affect you, such Archon Investigation, Delaying Tactics or Deflection than in "generic" cards - Flash vs Pursuit is moot).

I was more referring to the difference between asking if there are at least 16, which someone might not exactly know and if there is at least 1 copy of a specific card, which is something people actually DO know, especially if it's silver bullets like AI.

> Izaak wrote: > silver bullets like AI. > Thias ultimately gets covered by "I will not categorize cards".

Then leave out the silver bullet comment. There is a difference between "do you have at least 16 copies of a card that does Y in your deck" and "do you have at least one copy of card X in your deck". The former, I can see people not knowing, at least not precisely. The latter, I'm not buying. This whole "well ya know I forgot so I answer as best as I can and happen to give the wrong answer... whoops sorry told you I didn't remember" is just another excuse to cheat.

> Pascal wrote: > "Do you have 1 Archon Investigation in your deck?" > when asking a player with an inferior protean deck ? > There is very minimal advantage to be gained by asking about whether or not something is in someone's deck, as opposed to asking if it is in their hand; if you say "Do you have a Deflection in your hand?", that is both cut and dry and useful information. Asking "do you have Deflections in your deck?" isn't that useful; you probably already know that they have Deflections in their deck. Asking about specific numbers in their deck might get you info, but not really more significant info than "do you have this in your hand?"

Well, in the case of AI specifically it's pretty useful to know if they play any at all, so you have to either work around it or not. This really goes for any card - if you have a problem dealing with a specific card, getting a "no" on the question if they play any at all, ALSO answer the question whether or not they have one in their hand. Except, apparently you are allowed to lie if anyone asks something about your deck because you can pretend to have forgotten.

> TunFiskeMad wrote: > If you are not responsible for knowing the contents of your librery, how can you be responsible for knowing the card text of said content? > You aren't. But knowing, for sure, the correct card text can make a huge difference. fr.ex. A player lost the NAC Day 1 final this year because he wasn't aware of current card text of a Jyhad-edition card in his deck, and played it improperly. 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 Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Izaak wrote: > Well, in the case of AI specifically it's pretty useful to know if they play any at all, so you have to either work around it or not. > Which is also answered by them having one in their hand or not--knowing you have AI in your deck means I have to never bleed for more than 3. Knowing you don't have one in your hand means I can bleed for 10 all I want *now*. Ask questions about what is in someone's hand *now*. That solves all the problems here. > This really goes for any card - if you have a problem dealing with a specific card, getting a "no" on the question if they play any at all, ALSO answer the question whether or not they have one in their hand. > Sure. But getting the answer "yes" doesn't help you at all. So ask about what is in their hand and respond accordingly. > Except, apparently you are allowed to lie if anyone asks something about your deck because you can pretend to have forgotten. > Really, isn't asking someone about what is in their deck a question about the future anyway? Asking "do you have AI in your deck" is essentially asking "Might you draw AI in the future?". Which is covered by card text (i.e. answers are not binding). Ask about things that are now. Not about things that might be.

After determining that one's prey will never have AI in hand, one can ask other important questions. For example, whether they have a wake or bounce in hand.

> Izaak wrote: > Then leave out the silver bullet comment. > > There is a difference between "do you have at least 16 copies of a card that does Y in your deck" and "do you have at least one copy of card X in your deck". > > The former, I can see people not knowing, at least not precisely. The latter, I'm not buying. This whole "well ya know I forgot so I answer as best as I can and happen to give the wrong answer... whoops sorry told you I didn't remember" is just another excuse to cheat. > Ec2011 day 2, wanna playing something different then lcq and day one im borrowing a deck from a freind, writing a quick deck list and hands it over. I promise you that there was card in that deck, that I by name could not answere if they was in there or not, playing a clan im not used to with a disiplin im not used to. That mig qualify me as a terrible player, thats fine by me, but dosent make the story less true. Yes I would be able to tell you if there was an AI in the deck or not, but seriously not certain Disiplin cards, and since Pascal you, twice, said he would not catagorize cards (which makes sense not to do) I would be in a position where I would not be able to answere. /Jesper

> Dorrinal wrote: > After determining that one's prey will never have AI in hand, one can ask other important questions. For example, whether they have a wake or bounce in hand. > Oh don't forget to cover the contingency of Agaitas plus *his prey's* Archon Investigation! B) Erciyes Fragment doesn't count as in your hand, but it's another way to use an AI from another player's deck. Of course you will probably see either of these coming, but it goes to show that someone can still play an AI even if they don't have one in their deck! pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Ec2011 day 2, wanna playing something different then lcq and day one im borrowing a deck from a freind, writing a quick deck list and hands it over. I promise you that there was card in that deck, that I by name could not answere if they was in there or not, playing a clan im not used to with a disiplin im not used to. That mig qualify me as a terrible player, thats fine by me, but dosent make the story less true. Yes I would be able to tell you if there was an AI in the deck or not, but seriously not certain Disiplin cards, and since Pascal you, twice, said he would not catagorize cards (which makes sense not to do) I would be in a position where I would not be able to answere. > Well, clearly if I had played a Monocle and asked you about AI you'd have known the answer. Not answering it truthfully makes you a liar and with it a cheater because Monocle states you have to answer truthfully. However, because there is no way to check, Pascal is allowing you to lie about it and when you're being caught you can just say "oooh but I don't remember sorry!". That may or may not be a problem, but that doesn't make it less silly. Similar as to how people are allowed to cheat with different card backs.

> Dorrinal wrote: > After determining that one's prey will never have AI in hand, one can ask other important questions. For example, whether they have a wake or bounce in hand. > Or you can ask every turn if they have either an AI or a wake/bounce in hand.

Right now you can ask questions with the Monocle that a player might legitimately not know the answer to, "such as how many of X do you have in your deck?" Pascal's solution is to say that the player should answer to the best of his ability, but that of course there is a possibility that he might be wrong since he can't check the content of his deck. That is not unreasonable, but it leads to the possibility of a person legally lying about the contents of his decks since he has a defense that cannot be verified: "I forgot that I didn't have a copy of Archon Investigation in my deck when you asked me." (Obviously if someone asks if you have any AIs in your deck, you want your answer to be yes ) The problem is with the Monocle. You can ask questions that a player might not be ABLE to answer 100% truthfully, although he is required to do so. Limiting the scope of the Monocle's questions would clean things up quite a bit. Limiting the Monocle to ask about the player's hand and uncontrolled region seems reasonable and easy.

It is my belief that your decks contents does not pertain to to the game, though it could if you draw the card(s). Such questions are about the future and are in no way binding.

> Shard wrote: > It is my belief that your decks contents does not pertain to to the game, though it could if you draw the card(s). Such questions are about the future and are in no way binding. > In what way does an essential game component not pertain to the game? This isn't a question about beliefs. This is just a simple question of card text. Your library (and crypt) are both part of the game. Questions about them pertain to the game. That's simply what the words mean. The point is that you're not allowed (as was possible with the original printing) to ask questions about things that are completely disconnected from the game. "Did you sleep with my wife?" is one of the usual examples. "Is that the same deck you played on Tuesday?" is totally legitimate. ("No..." because I swapped Villein out for Blood Doll is also totally legitimate.) Because it pertains to the game.

Here are some questions that pertain to VtES, but are out of game considerations. Did you build the deck you are playing now? Have you ever won a tournament? Have you spent 2000 or more on vtes cards? Questions about library and crypt are about cards that you "might" draw are about the future, if you never draw a card can you really say it pertained to the game.

That's completely besides the point. I'm not asking what you "might" draw. I'm asking if a card is in your deck RIGHT NOW. I'm not asking if you would swap that Smiling Jack for a Pentex if you would change the deck. The card is there, or it is not. This has NOTHING to do with any future whatsoever.

> Izaak wrote: > > I'm not asking what you "might" draw. I'm asking if a card is in your deck RIGHT NOW. The card is there, or it is not. This has NOTHING to do with any future whatsoever. > Sure, sure, but why are you asking? Isn't to know what you can expect LATER.

> Izaak wrote: > That's completely besides the point. > > I'm not asking what you "might" draw. I'm asking if a card is in your deck RIGHT NOW. I'm not asking if you would swap that Smiling Jack for a Pentex if you would change the deck. The card is there, or it is not. This has NOTHING to do with any future whatsoever. > What Pascal indicated earlier with his example of Claws of the Dead/Wolf Claws is that you may not remember what is in your deck. Even if it's an Archon Investigation. You may have borrowed a deck. Have a poor memory. Have drunk to much the day before. Or be truthfully convinced you didn't put any <X> in your deck. Now, you're supposed to answer truthfully. You may cheat on unverifiable elements and pretend you don't recall, or say you think there's none. Or you can truly don't remember. In any case, be aware that when you ask a question pertaining to the deck content (an unverifiable element) the answer may be wrong. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Shard wrote: > > > Izaak wrote: > > > > I'm not asking what you "might" draw. I'm asking if a card is in your deck RIGHT NOW. The card is there, or it is not. This has NOTHING to do with any future whatsoever. > > > Sure, sure, but why are you asking? Isn't to know what you can expect LATER. > Why am I asking if you have a Deflection in your hand? Isn't it so I can expect that you can play it LATER? > You may cheat on unverifiable elements and pretend you don't recall > Exactly. And this is the weird thing. The rules *ALLOW* someone who wants to cheat do so legally! Similar to how the rules ALLOW someone to play unsleeved and cheat, would he want to.

Izaak, what are you proposing instead?

> Izaak, what are you proposing instead? > Well, before this thread I wasn't even aware that not answering the question truthfully was allowed as long as you can just claim "whoops, forgot about that" when you get caught. It's not as if Monocle sees a lot of play in the first place and I doubt a lot of players are cheating in VTES. However, similar to the card back problem, I find it extremely odd you are, if you want so, legally allowed to cheat. The easy fix for Monocle has already been proposed earlier in the thread - allow it to only ask questions that are easily verifiable. Failing that (ya know, cos it's an errata and all) just get rid of the "whoops I forgot" escape. If you're not sure, as a judge to check. If you don't, and then later are caught giving the wrong answer, you get penalized. > Cheating cheapens a win, what fun is that? I don't know why anyone would cheat in a game. > This is besides the point.

> Izaak wrote: > Well, before this thread I wasn't even aware that not answering the question truthfully was allowed as long as you can just claim "whoops, forgot about that" when you get caught. > You're not allowed. Your point is that people should behave like douchebag if they can get away with it, and rules should expect that. Rule does not expect that for Monocle of clarity, you're right, but since VtES lake real reason to cheat and Monocle is not an important card by any amount, I don't buy your point.

You don't have to buy it for it to be the reality. I'm also nowhere saying people are douchebags and cheat all the time. I'm saying the rules have a hole (actually two) in that they allow people to be douchebags legally.

How do you know that the player that used mistress fanchon ability got a minion card - not a master or an event? There is no way. Or you trust him, or call a judge everytime he uses it. The case is that using monocle that way - forces him to ask truthfully under game conditions. Say, you ask: Is there 5 govern the unaligned in your deck? How can I anwer truthfully a question that I don't know for sure? I think that question is not in the things pertaining to the game (the library cards are not on play or in hand) and cannot be asked. I am death. Paul Kersey, Death Wish

There are more cards that allow cheating... Any card that allows you to search your library(with a limitation) and not show other players. Any card that has a "due not replace clause" in it. ...give an opportunity to cheat.

Also, the multiplayer nature of the game, allows players to cheat. Although there are technically rules against collusion, it's really hard to prove. These two players are from the same playgroup and they've come up with an odd alliance. Is that unfair collusion? Or maybe they just trust each other more? Or maybe they know each other's decks already, and their alliance is a logical choice, given that information? Or, that guy replaced his Wake. Is that cheating or an honest mistake? Will the knowledge of his next card be a significant advantage? Obviously, the hope is that people won't cheat. But there are already so many possible ways to subtly cheat if you really wanted to, that I don't think Monocle of Clarity is a big deal. Also, in regards to lying, there is a difference between honesty and truthfulness (though people sometimes disagree on which is which). There are also complicated metaphysical arguments about the nature of "truth." Is there an actual or universal truth? Or is everything subjective? How much is based on perception? If someone believes something is true that person isn't lying (even if it actually isn't true). If you honestly believe that there is an Archon Investigation, you could still be wrong (maybe you forgot about a last minute deck change, maybe your friend/family member made a change without telling you, maybe it ended up in someone else's deck due to Erciyes Fragment). Even if everyone (including the judge) believes something is true, that doesn't necessarily make it true (unless you want to go with the subjective reality paradigm). pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

> Shard wrote: > Is it legal to remove card(s) at random from your deck before the game or tournament? > In a standard tournament without decklists, it wouldn't be legal to remove cards between rounds - although it would be legal to do so before the first round (i.e. before the tournament). You play the same deck each round. In a standard tournament with decklists, your deck must match the decklist at all times. Once the judge has your decklist, no removals are possible. If you remove anything before handing the decklist in, you must make the decklist match it. In a multi-deck tournament (where you can change decks between rounds), it would potentially be possible to remove cards at random from your deck. Your previously 80 card Tzimisce deck now has 72 cards in it for round 2. If you were using decklists in a multi-deck tournament, you'd need to make the two match - as for a normal tournament. (I've never heard of a multi-deck tournament requiring decklists, typically because they're not very important ones because they're small - 3.1.5 of the Tournament Rules.) Any random removals that you do make must, of course, leave the deck in a legal state. You can't have fewer than 12 vampires, you can't have fewer than 60 library cards etc. In any event, there's no need for you to know the contents of your deck. It might have been given to you by someone else at the start of the game. It might be a deck you last played a year ago and have dragged out at the last minute.

> echiang wrote: > Also, the multiplayer nature of the game, allows players to cheat. Although there are technically rules against collusion, it's really hard to prove. > > These two players are from the same playgroup and they've come up with an odd alliance. Is that unfair collusion? Or maybe they just trust each other more? Or maybe they know each other's decks already, and their alliance is a logical choice, given that information? > The tournament rules on collusion are actually very narrow. It is perfectly legal to make alliances outside a game as long as the players involved to do not agree to work for a specific game outcome, such as Player A 3VP, Player B 2VP. Jay Kristoff, the winner of the 2010 US National tournament, told in his blog about how he made an alliance with another member of his playgroup, James Messer, before both of them entered the finals of that tournament. He suffered no penalties for this once it was brought to the judge's attention. This was proper, because James and he did not agree to a particular outcome to the game, which is how the tournament rules define collusion. I do not agree with this - I think it should be against the rules to discuss a game when other players of the game are not present. But it's not, even though many people think it is. > echiang wrote: > Or, that guy replaced his Wake. Is that cheating or an honest mistake? Will the knowledge of his next card be a significant advantage? > This situation is covered in the (usually ignored) Judge's Guideline. Replacing a card that should not be replaced is an infraction, and the remedy demanded by the guideline is that the card drawn must be returned to the library, and then the library must be shuffled. > echiang wrote: > Also, in regards to lying, there is a difference between honesty and truthfulness (though people sometimes disagree on which is which). There are also complicated metaphysical arguments about the nature of "truth." Is there an actual or universal truth? Or is everything subjective? How much is based on perception? > > If someone believes something is true that person isn't lying (even if it actually isn't true). If you honestly believe that there is an Archon Investigation, you could still be wrong (maybe you forgot about a last minute deck change, maybe your friend/family member made a change without telling you, maybe it ended up in someone else's deck due to Erciyes Fragment). Even if everyone (including the judge) believes something is true, that doesn't necessarily make it true (unless you want to go with the subjective reality paradigm). > I completely agree with you. True=real. Answering incorrectly when you believe you're telling a true statement doesn't make the answer truthful. If the answer is not truthful (in other words, not correct), then you have committed an infraction, even if unwittingly. That's just my take.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Shard wrote: > > Is it legal to remove card(s) at random from your deck before the game or tournament? > > > In a standard tournament with decklists, your deck must match the decklist at all times. Once the judge has your decklist, no removals are possible. If you remove anything before handing the decklist in, you must make the decklist match it. > In this case couldn't you give the judge your decklist, a pen and ask him or her "to pick a card any card". The judge would have to be willing to make the change and not tell you, but I don't see a problem. "Bonus" points if you can tell what card was removed after the tournament. Of course I am assuming the player in question is not a cheater, but I guess that is not necessarily true.

> Izaak wrote: > > > Izaak, what are you proposing instead? > > > Well, before this thread I wasn't even aware that not answering the question truthfully was allowed as long as you can just claim "whoops, forgot about that" when you get caught. > > It's not as if Monocle sees a lot of play in the first place and I doubt a lot of players are cheating in VTES. However, similar to the card back problem, I find it extremely odd you are, if you want so, legally allowed to cheat. > > The easy fix for Monocle has already been proposed earlier in the thread - allow it to only ask questions that are easily verifiable. Failing that (ya know, cos it's an errata and all) just get rid of the "whoops I forgot" escape. If you're not sure, as a judge to check. If you don't, and then later are caught giving the wrong answer, you get penalized. > There's no need into fixing it. People are already allowed to "ask questions that are easily verifiable". Asking questions to which people can't answer "I can't remember" is simply a more simple route to get true answers. Forcing players to ask "good" questions is a bit non-sensical. You see it the other way: "Deck content is part of the game, I should be able to ask a question about it" whereas I am more pragmatic: ask questions about certainties. You can ask bad questions with the Monocle; asking about the content of the deck is one of them. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Shard wrote: > In this case couldn't you give the judge your decklist, a pen and ask him or her "to pick a card any card". The judge would have to be willing to make the change and not tell you, but I don't see a problem. > Sure, you could get a friend to do that for you, if you wanted. You could use a psychic dog to construct your deck for you and never look at it. All such questions boil down to "Can I play a deck where I don't know the contents?" The answer is: yes. Enumerating ever more bizarre ways in which you can hide the contents from yourself is... weird.

> Aaron wrote: > > > echiang wrote: > > Or, that guy replaced his Wake. Is that cheating or an honest mistake? Will the knowledge of his next card be a significant advantage? > > > This situation is covered in the (usually ignored) Judge's Guideline. Replacing a card that should not be replaced is an infraction, and the remedy demanded by the guideline is that the card drawn must be returned to the library, and then the library must be shuffled. > Well, then you have the issue of what happens if the player already knows what the top card is (saw it with Tusk, put it there with Marrakesh Codex). In this case, it doesn't give him any more information than he already had (unless he forgot in the meantime). In fact, requiring a shuffle in these cases could be advantageous to him if he *doesn't* want the top card of his library! > I completely agree with you. True=real. Answering incorrectly when you believe you're telling a true statement doesn't make the answer truthful. If the answer is not truthful (in other words, not correct), then you have committed an infraction, even if unwittingly. That's just my take. > True and real get complicated when it comes to questions like whether "God" exists, or whether evolution is real. Even with less controversial science, you end up with changing models (from a Newtonian framework to Einstein's relativity to string theory). So things might not work the way we think it does. It might even be possible for something to be both true and false at the same time. Quantum theory (specifically for quantum computing) seems to indicate this might be possible. Also, a lot of what we hold to be true is probably very false. Most people are pretty confident about their family lineage, even though statistics on parental discrepancy suggest that a lot of people are probably mistaken. History is often said to be written by the victors. Even now, if you look at the history that different countries teach, there can be lots of significant differences. How do you know what happened in 1492? Or 1945? Because some book said so? Because everyone told you so? In fact, how do you know you were actually born on your birthdate? Because you have a scrap of paper and your mother told you so? There are plenty of cases where people don't realize they're adopted or don't realize their illegal immigrants, even though they believed otherwise all their lives. You could even go further with the line of thinking - is this a dream? Is the real world real or maybe this is all some sort of hallucination, or virtual reality thingy, or this is just like the Matrix? So I would assert that when it comes to "true" and "real," things can often get complicated, if you really stop to think about it. pckvtes.wordpress.com @pckvtes

Okay, I can't pretend I really get into such abstract philosophical discussions, but that post is so deep, it just earned you a karma point.

thanks to this thread, I'm going to start putting Monocle of Clarity in every single deck I build. SEE YOU ALL AT THE 2012 NAC!

> Izaak wrote: > > > Ec2011 day 2, wanna playing something different then lcq and day one im borrowing a deck from a freind, writing a quick deck list and hands it over. I promise you that there was card in that deck, that I by name could not answere if they was in there or not, playing a clan im not used to with a disiplin im not used to. That mig qualify me as a terrible player, thats fine by me, but dosent make the story less true. Yes I would be able to tell you if there was an AI in the deck or not, but seriously not certain Disiplin cards, and since Pascal you, twice, said he would not catagorize cards (which makes sense not to do) I would be in a position where I would not be able to answere. > > > Well, clearly if I had played a Monocle and asked you about AI you'd have known the answer. Not answering it truthfully makes you a liar and with it a cheater because Monocle states you have to answer truthfully. > > However, because there is no way to check, Pascal is allowing you to lie about it and when you're being caught you can just say "oooh but I don't remember sorry!". > > That may or may not be a problem, but that doesn't make it less silly. Similar as to how people are allowed to cheat with different card backs. > But we comes down to, whats the difference between AI and Buffelo Charge or Cats Guidence? Im not saying I would lie and break the rules (no where did you see me write that). Im just saying that there could be cards in my deck I wouldent know if they was or wasent in there. As a counter argument to a "top player" should know whats in his deck, or maybe a Top player should know, but not pr. automatic a player on day 2. /Jesper

> Izaak wrote: > > > Shard wrote: > > > > > Izaak wrote: > > > > > > I'm not asking what you "might" draw. I'm asking if a card is in your deck RIGHT NOW. The card is there, or it is not. This has NOTHING to do with any future whatsoever. > > > > > > > > Sure, sure, but why are you asking? Isn't to know what you can expect LATER. > > > Why am I asking if you have a Deflection in your hand? Isn't it so I can expect that you can play it LATER? > > > You may cheat on unverifiable elements and pretend you don't recall > > > Exactly. And this is the weird thing. The rules *ALLOW* someone who wants to cheat do so legally! Similar to how the rules ALLOW someone to play unsleeved and cheat, would he want to. > No they are not allowed to cheat legally, you just cant prove if they do cheat. That dosent mean its allowed to.

> Haze wrote: > thanks to this thread, I'm going to start putting Monocle of Clarity in every single deck I build. > > SEE YOU ALL AT THE 2012 NAC! > Actully I was thinking about the same, but I would spice it up with Filchs Pawnshop so other players could get to ask questions

> Jesper wrote: > > > Haze wrote: > > thanks to this thread, I'm going to start putting Monocle of Clarity in every single deck I build. > > > > SEE YOU ALL AT THE 2012 NAC! > > > Actully I was thinking about the same, but I would spice it up with Filchs Pawnshop so other players could get to ask questions > I might use it with Malkavian Time Auction, to see how much pool others are willing to pay to ask silly questions (or to stop me from asking stupid questions)