Monocle of Clarity

Please, someone, for the love of christ explaine to me..... This card does absolutely nothing from what I can glean. Why the hell was it reprinted? Since the answer given to the question is not binding, the question, answer and the card itself are worth about as much as seven day old piss in a cup with a hole in it. How the hell can it be used with any effectiveness that would explain taking up a card slot or be useful in even the most basic sense?

Please quote card texts: > Monocle of Clarity > > Equipment > > 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. > That clause was added to prevent people from breaking the game by using the monocle to ask "what will be your answer to my next question?" The monocle can still be used to ask someone about his current hand.

> diablerist wrote: > Please, someone, for the love of christ explaine to me..... > > This card does absolutely nothing from what I can glean. Why the hell was it reprinted? Since the answer given to the question is not binding, the question, answer and the card itself are worth about as much as seven day old piss in a cup with a hole in it. How the hell can it be used with any effectiveness that would explain taking up a card slot or be useful in even the most basic sense? > "Do you have a Deflection in your hand?" is not a questiong pertaining to the future. Henceforth, the answer to it must be truthfull.

As stated, the card is very useful if you use the right questions... Do you have a deflection in your hand? No Bleed for x... Redirection... Do you have one or more cards named Archon Investigation in your hand? Do you have a card that allows you to redirect a bleed to other Methuselah? Etc, etc etc...

Say I have Aksinya Daclau. If asked if I have a card that allows me to redirect a bleed to another Methuselah (and I have a Master card in hand), must I say "yes"? Name: Aksinya Daclau [Third:V] Cardtype: Vampire Clan: Gangrel antitribu Group: 4 Capacity: 9 Discipline: cel tha ANI FOR PRE PRO Sabbat: Once each turn during a bleed against you, if Aksinya is ready and untapped, you may discard a master card from your hand to redirect the bleed to any other Methuselah. Artist: Abrar Ajmal

> Brum wrote: > Say I have Aksinya Daclau. > > If asked if I have a card that allows me to redirect a bleed to another Methuselah (and I have a Master card in hand), must I say "yes"? > When asked, LSJ said that both players must agree on the meaning of the question. So if you both consider that a master card fulfills the requirements of your question, the answer is "yes". Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

It's best to write down some lists. List 1: Wake with Evening's Freshness, Forced Awakening, On the Qui Vive, Eluding the Arms of Morpheus, Sense the Savage Way, Special Report, Black Sunrise, The Mole, Second Tradition: Domain, Read the Winds, Eyes of Argus, Speak with Spirits, Fillip List 2: Deflection, Redirection, Lost in Translation, Telepathic Misdirection, My enemy's Enemy, Mumrur of the False Will List 3: Majesty, Staredown, Earth Meld, Perfect Paragon, Form of Mist, Coma, Entombment List 4: Minion Tap, Villein, Temptation of Greater Power, Pentex Subversion And you start asking "Do you have at least one card of List 1 and two cards of List 2 in your hand ?"

Is that a joke? Or is that an actual ruling?

> AaronC wrote: > Is that a joke? > > Or is that an actual ruling? > What are you referring to, with "that" ?

> AaronC wrote: > Is that a joke? > > Or is that an actual ruling? > It's not a ruling. It's just a way among others to make sure to get a proper answer. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

It can even be used to get around the rule that you cannot show cards in your hand to other players. "Self, do I have a Kiss of Ra in my hand?" "Yes, I do" Then have your FOR minion take an action that isn't worth going to torpor for... VtES store : www.prunesquallor.net Card supplies & games : stores.ebay.com/Prunesquallors-Secret-Cache

> Pascal wrote: > It's best to write down some lists. > > List 1: > Wake with Evening's Freshness, Forced Awakening, On the Qui Vive, Eluding the Arms of Morpheus, Sense the Savage Way, Special Report, Black Sunrise, The Mole, Second Tradition: Domain, Read the Winds, Eyes of Argus, Speak with Spirits, Fillip > > List 2: > Deflection, Redirection, Lost in Translation, Telepathic Misdirection, My enemy's Enemy, Mumrur of the False Will > > List 3: > Majesty, Staredown, Earth Meld, Perfect Paragon, Form of Mist, Coma, Entombment > > List 4: > Minion Tap, Villein, Temptation of Greater Power, Pentex Subversion > > And you start asking "Do you have at least one card of List 1 and two cards of List 2 in your hand ?" > Let's try this again. Are you ruling in this post that one can refer to a written document when asking a question through the power of The Monocle of Clarity? If this is the rule as you understand it but this post is not the original ruling, where does the original ruling come from? If this is the rule, can such a document can be created before the game by the player in question? During the game?

> AaronC wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > It's best to write down some lists. > > > > Let's try this again. > > > > Are you ruling in this post that one can refer to a written document when asking a question through the power of The Monocle of Clarity? > > > I wish Pascal had mentioned that one must tatoo the list on his skin. > Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> AaronC wrote: > Are you ruling in this post that one can refer to a written document when asking a question through the power of The Monocle of Clarity? > I am merely stating it. Players do it all the time on JoL. > AaronC wrote: > If this is the rule as you understand it but this post is not the original ruling, where does the original ruling come from? > There is no original ruling for this, as this isn't a ruling. Any form of communication is OK, as long as: - Every player has access to the contents of the question (don't whisper, give folded papers, send private messages, ..) - Every player understands the question (don't start speaking klingon) - Every player has acces to the contents of the answer (as above) - Every player understands the answer (as above) Clarifications ("What did you just say?", "I can't read what you wrote there" ...) can be asked if need be. I'm not sure at all that has ever been covered in the rulebook. I'd list it under "sportsmanship". The communication isn't mandatorily done by voice. Usually, as far as I have seen, players use whatever form of communication is the most adapted and the fastest. That's voice in "regular" games, that's writing on JoL, it could be Skype or whatever. > AaronC wrote: > If this is the rule, can such a document can be created before the game by the player in question? During the game? > Ah, that's a good question. I think I can remember something about "using the notes you've taken in a previous game" where LSJ stated that you can only have blank sheets of paper at the beginning of the game. I'll look for something similar.

> Pascal wrote: > - Every player understands the question (don't start speaking klingon) > The fact that you don't understand klingon is your problem, not mine. (hint: use the voice tone "geek royalty". ) Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

Well, if all players speak Klingon, that's OK to use Klingon, I suppose. Or Tengwar. Or French.

Instead of some of the lists you could ask along the following lines: "Do you have in your hand a reaction card that untaps your minion(s) or let's them act as untapped?" "Do you have in your hand a card that changes the target of bleed?" Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > Instead of some of the lists you could ask along the following lines: > > "Do you have in your hand a reaction card that untaps your minion(s) or let's them act as untapped?" > > "Do you have in your hand a card that changes the target of bleed?" > These are dangerous as they can be ambiguous. Majesty would fit in the first section, and DI/Two Wrongs could arguably fit in the second part. Also, if you control Aksinya, a master in your hand would still not read "Change the target of the bleed". Telepathic Misdirection would be a valid choice even when none of your minions has superior Auspex

> Pascal wrote: > > > AaronC wrote: > > Are you ruling in this post that one can refer to a written document when asking a question through the power of The Monocle of Clarity? > > > I am merely stating it. Players do it all the time on JoL. > I have never played on JOL, so I have never heard of such a thing. My opinion is that people I play with face-to-face have never of this either. That's why I thought you were joking > 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. > It is a real stretch to say that writing on a piece of paper "pertains to the game", since pieces of paper are not part of the playing pieces of the game. Nor are lists of cards that are written in electronic documents. If someone tried to use an outside writing in my playgroup for this purpose, it would cause dissent and confusion. It is your role to provide clear guidance. I would not be able to research whether this is permissible or not because there is no ruling - Pierre Van Tran's collection of rulings on the VEKN France forum doesn't mention this. His work there is the only comprehensive collection of rulings that I know of. My opinion is that the use of such outside writings in conjunction with The Monocle of Clarity requires a ruling, not just an acknowledgement. The ruling should preferably explain how the use of such documents would work in tournament play, since it is useful for judges in different regions to have a consistent guideline.

Thats why having excrutiatingly detailed questions that still have a blatant answer are optimal. "Do you have a bounce card in your hand?" Is OK but if your prey has out peter blaine, iliana, and vincent day, and you are about to bleed with slava, they could say yes but be holding my enemys enemy, telepathic misdirection, lost in translation, and 4 copies of rolling woth the punches. Now"do you have a way to bounce a bleed with the cards in your hand and thr minions you have out if i bleex with slava?" Is a yes or no question, and the truth is, no they do not. You asked a very narrow question. Now, if peter blaine tries to block and is met with earth control, he could cycle the 2 auspex cards and draw a deflection, making monacle still bad, but your question worked. If you bleed with daring the dawn, your question has gotten your oust. Its normally better to ask about things like "are you holding an archon inveztigation?" Or "are you holding a way to cancel a master in your hand that ould cancel one i play from my hand right now, without having to be in play before i ay mine" or, do you have any sce that do not require protean in yiur hand?" If you hold a shape mastery and are a combat deck. Tbere are usez, and there are often befter card slots. But "are you holding card that can cancel my parity shift and make me unable to call it again this turn?" Is better than asking if they have a dt just to have it di2'd or vice versa. Be specific if yiu use it. If only one carx is you worry, ask. If only one effect "treat aggravated damage as normal" can stop you, ask that instead of asking about skin of bight just to have pentinent resillience or jau vema stop your dawn op weather control or domain outside the hourglass. See what i mean?

So, now that we're on the topic of Monocle, I still couldn't quite get a clear answer to the question earlier discussed in this thread: www.vekn.net/index.php/forum/6-rules-questions/18214-monocle-of-clarity-a-questions-about-the-deck-contents?limit=10&start=30 We were discussing this earlier on the weekly games. Do you have to answer truthfully to deck content questions? Just thinkin, 'cause sometimes you really don't remember. Sometimes you do know exactly how many AIs there are. If you simply don't know, do you have to answer yes/no anyways? Can you lie if you DO know? It would be cool to have this ruling in the card rulings section in VEKN as well, 'cause it's not really super clear. "Oh, to the Hades with the manners! He's a complete bastard, and calling him that insults bastards everywhere!" -Nalia De-Arnise garourimgazette.wordpress.com/ www.vekn.net/forum-guidelines

> Kraus wrote: > We were discussing this earlier on the weekly games. Do you have to answer truthfully to deck content questions? > Yes. If you accurately know the answer, you must give that answer. If you do not accurately know the answer, you must give a "Yes" or "No" answer which is correct to the best of your (imperfect) knowledge. [LSJ 20021121] "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer in that situation - it must be yes or no. [LSJ 20021122] As the asker of the question, it will be extremely difficult for you to know whether the player is accurate or not. It is therefore usually much better to stick to questions that could be verified by (for example) a judge looking over the player's shoulder at their hand/uncontrolled region etc. Answers about information that is actually hidden from the answerer may well be inaccurate. "Oh crap, I forgot to put those Mind Rapes back into this deck." etc.

> Kraus wrote: > > We were discussing this earlier on the weekly games. Do you have to answer truthfully to deck content questions? > The answer is "No." I believe that in the thread that you reference, Pascal said that you can fail to remember what is in your deck without penalty. It may be unsportsmanlike according to some people not to tell the truth in that situation. However, you can lie and then, if the card appears, you can claim that you did not remember it was in your deck. Since there is no penalty for doing that, it is legal to do.

> Pascal wrote: > > > Lönkka wrote: > > Instead of some of the lists you could ask along the following lines: > > "Do you have in your hand a reaction card that untaps your minion(s) or let's them act as untapped?" > > > These are dangerous as they can be ambiguous. Majesty would fit in the first section,... > Majesty is not a "reaction card", it is a Combat card. 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

> Kraus wrote: > Do you have to answer truthfully to deck content questions? > in other words, is it okay to cheat when it's practically impossible to get caught? now I'm inspired, gonna put monocle in every deck and only ask questions about deck contents just to see how people react. I plan to make a real nuisance of myself.

> AaronC wrote: > > The answer is "No." I believe that in the thread that you reference, Pascal said that you can fail to remember what is in your deck without penalty. > Could the asker of the question demand of the judge to go through the target's deck in order to verify/confirm the answer, if the asker suspects forgetfulness/foul play? I mean, the content of every deck is not secret to judges, right? EDIT: also, couldn't the target of a question, if he knows he isn't sure about the answer, in order to answer truthfully within a yes/no option, willingly or on his own initiative hand his deck to a judge for inspection?

> Kiddo wrote: > Could the asker of the question demand of the judge to go through the target's deck in order to verify/confirm the answer, if the asker suspects forgetfulness/foul play? > Forgetfulness and uncertainty are allowed. You may not be playing your own deck! But no, the deck cannot be searched to check. [LSJ 20011121] > LSJ wrote: > It could be that the player in unable to answer this. > The player is not allowed to look through her library during the game (unless > an effect allows her to, of course). > Best to keep to things that can be known in order to get meaningful answers. > The basic point is that, if you want an accurate answer, pick something that is clearly known by the player - the state of their hand, the state of their uncontrolled region, the card they've put under Storage Annex, and similar options.

Why would anyone ask for particular hands, if you could ask hypothetic questions pertaining the effects? E.g., if I bled you for 99, would have a way to prevent the pool loss by this bleed given your current hand and other cards or abilities under your disposal? Such wording would cover any bouncing, archon investigation, etc. If you mention the real value you would bleed for, e.g. 2, bleed reduction would be included as well. Or if this PA at 3 stealth would deal you 3 pool damage with Vampire A voting in favor with 2 votes, vampire B voting in favor with 1 vote, etc., would you be able to prevent it or deal pool damage to the acting player during this action with the "resources" (named above) at your disposal at the moment? It would cover intercepting, Delaying Tactics, Poison Pill, vote modifiers or abilities and probably more. Yes, it is clunky, but the general question is clear, general and carefully worded. And this is somewhat harder to mess up than naming all of the cards which would have the beforementioned effects. Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> kombainas wrote: > Or if this PA at 3 stealth would deal you 3 pool damage with Vampire A voting in favor with 2 votes, vampire B voting in favor with 1 vote, etc., would you be able to prevent it or deal pool damage to the acting player during this action with the "resources" (named above) at your disposal at the moment? It would cover intercepting, Delaying Tactics, Poison Pill, vote modifiers or abilities and probably more. > This starts edging into what can't be known. You have a Power Structure out - do I know that you're going to tap it? Perhaps I have Kindred Coercion which can change votes (but not force them), and I don't know which vampires you'll cast votes with. (Probably all, but who can say for certain?) However, it is perfectly ordinary to ask something like "If Bobby the Vampire bleeds you at +2 stealth, do you have the ability to bounce or block it?"

> This starts edging into what can't be known. You have a Power Structure out - do I know that you're going to tap it? > The question is about an ability and having access to it. You can define the hypothetical situation as detailed as you need (who casts votes how, who plays what modifiers, etc.). > However, it is perfectly ordinary to ask something like "If Bobby the Vampire bleeds you at +2 stealth, do you have the ability to bounce or block it?" > In such case I'd answer yes if I have any bounce card in my library (or ash heap if I have an ability to recycle them) or 2 intercept in any form (even less, if there are intercept-sharing locations in play or I know someone has them in their library). The key point missed here is in defining when the bounce/block would be made. Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> kombainas wrote: > > > This starts edging into what can't be known. You have a Power Structure out - do I know that you're going to tap it? > > > The question is about an ability and having access to it. You can define the hypothetical situation as detailed as you need (who casts votes how, who plays what modifiers, etc.). > At this point, you're not making things any easier or any more waterproof than just asking for a long list of cards. So people often do that. Since your original point was about that being "clunky" and this method being "somewhat harder to mess up", it's pretty similar in reality - and less ambiguous. > kombainas wrote: > In such case I'd answer yes if I have any bounce card in my library (or ash heap if I have an ability to recycle them) or 2 intercept in any form (even less, if there are intercept-sharing locations in play or I know someone has them in their library). The key point missed here is in defining when the bounce/block would be made. > Sure, you just say "If I bled you right now..., with the cards you have in your hand..." or whatever. The point I was making was that numerous abilities are contingent on other people's actions - who they vote with, what abilities they play in combat, or whatever. So your oh-so-carefully-worded question may have an unknowable answer - I don't know what the cards in my hand will let me do, because I don't know what you'll do, or what other players on the table will do. Typically less of a problem with bleed.

There is no need to get sarcastic. Usually people have either better developed memory (thus can remember the card lists) or logical skills (no need to remember stuff if you know how things work). Real life examples could be medicine students who have to learn thousands names for bones and their features, etc. where logic isn't useful, and physics students who cannot remember every solution to the questions, thus they have to actually solve problems on the fly. My suggestion is more suitable for the latter, whereas yours to the former. Nothing wrong with both. I just pointed out that your problem of not knowing can be circumvented by modelling the situation. The target must tell the truth. The responsibility of an incomplete model (not knowing of cornercase situations which would trump the case, etc.) falls doun on the bearer of the equipment. Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.

> kombainas wrote: > There is no need to get sarcastic. > I wasn't. It may also be relevant that if you have to give a short speech for every question, there is nothing to indicate that the opposing player must remember or understand every twist and turn of it. Certainly, I'm sure most people have been at games where a player has missed a ludicrously obvious play in the heat of the moment. Oh god, of course I could have used that, and then tapped that, and... At which point, they just give the answer to the best of their knowledge, and get it (objectively) wrong, but have answered truthfully.

Yeah, the speech part is boring. However, in real life that would work to your advantage: if people see there is no space to trick yourself out of the question, they would answer honestly. After all, the information anyone would need would be "will you bounce this bleed, or will you block this vote, etc.", but the Monocle cardtext prevents such simplicity Sabbat. If this vampire's bleed is successful, he laughs manicly and untaps.