Malkavian Prank Questions
Lupus Australis
I have 2 questions raised by the V:tES text of this card.
Since the V:tES text asks Methuselahs to hold out pool, instead of blood,
cannot one always know what to guess by counting the pool that remains on
the table? (I don't *really* need an answer to that one...I'm just making
fun of the V:tES wording).
If a Methuselah has only 1 pool left, can she still hold out more than 1
pool in her hand?
Lupus Australis
____ ____
\ \----/ /
|()__()|
__\ __ /__
/ __\()/__ \
|/ \==/ \|
| || |
LSJ
> I have 2 questions raised by the V:tES text of this card.
>
> Since the V:tES text asks Methuselahs to hold out pool, instead of blood,
> cannot one always know what to guess by counting the pool that remains on
> the table? (I don't *really* need an answer to that one...I'm just making
> fun of the V:tES wording).
>
> If a Methuselah has only 1 pool left, can she still hold out more than 1
> pool in her hand?
Yes. "pool" doesn't mean "her pool" - it just means "counters from the
blood bank".
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
xi...@waste.org
Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
>
> I have 2 questions raised by the V:tES text of this card.
>
> Since the V:tES text asks Methuselahs to hold out pool, instead of blood,
> cannot one always know what to guess by counting the pool that remains on
> the table? (I don't *really* need an answer to that one...I'm just making
> fun of the V:tES wording).
I always grab from the big pile o' pennies in the middle...and I'd probably
beat any of my friends that obviously tried to count my pool about the head
and shoulders...
Xian
"you can just ignore it....and let hand jam sort them out."
-Jasper Phillips
Jasper Phillips
Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
>
>I have 2 questions raised by the V:tES text of this card.
>
>Since the V:tES text asks Methuselahs to hold out pool, instead of blood,
>cannot one always know what to guess by counting the pool that remains on
>the table? (I don't *really* need an answer to that one...I'm just making
>fun of the V:tES wording).
>
>pool in her hand?
Let me add on a question: Is it legal to tell the person guessing how
much pool you chose? That's been pretty common practice when we've
played (e.g. A player giving his grandprey 4 pool), and I've
always wondered. We've always let it go, but it's always nice to
know for tournaments.
--
/\ Jasper Phillips
/VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz
j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--.
* http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`
LSJ
> [Malkavian Prank]
> Let me add on a question: Is it legal to tell the person guessing how
> much pool you chose? That's been pretty common practice when we've
> played (e.g. A player giving his grandprey 4 pool), and I've
> always wondered. We've always let it go, but it's always nice to
> know for tournaments.
Giving away information of any type (cards in hand, pool chosen, etc.)
is legal. So is giving away information that isn't true. So is
breaking a deal (and "guessing" the actual amount).
Collusion is illegal. If the players have agreed beforehand to use
the Prank as a way of getting pool for one of them, then that
would be illegal.
But, in you example, it seems to be a case of a player wanting to
strengthen his grand-prey for his own benefit (that is, slowing down
his prey), so it seems legit. But that's really a call for the judge.
Jasper Phillips
>Jasper Phillips wrote:
>> [Malkavian Prank]
>> Let me add on a question: Is it legal to tell the person guessing how
>> much pool you chose? That's been pretty common practice when we've
>> played (e.g. A player giving his grandprey 4 pool), and I've
>> always wondered. We've always let it go, but it's always nice to
>> know for tournaments.
>
>Giving away information of any type (cards in hand, pool chosen, etc.)
>is legal. So is giving away information that isn't true. So is
>breaking a deal (and "guessing" the actual amount).
>
>Collusion is illegal. If the players have agreed beforehand to use
>the Prank as a way of getting pool for one of them, then that
>would be illegal.
>
>But, in you example, it seems to be a case of a player wanting to
>strengthen his grand-prey for his own benefit (that is, slowing down
>his prey), so it seems legit. But that's really a call for the judge.
Interesting point about collusion. The pranksters locally certainly
have their own self interest in mind, and the beneficiary often goes
so far as to just show the 4 pool he picked up. Tends to happen
most often when the Pranksters grandprey is < 5.
On a related note, is it legal to show other players cards in hand,
to prove a statement? (or how many pool you've placed in your hand)
Lupus Australis
> Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote:
> > I have 2 questions raised by the V:tES text of this card.
> >
> > Since the V:tES text asks Methuselahs to hold out pool, instead of blood,
> > cannot one always know what to guess by counting the pool that remains on
> > the table? (I don't *really* need an answer to that one...I'm just making
> > fun of the V:tES wording).
> >
> > If a Methuselah has only 1 pool left, can she still hold out more than 1
> > pool in her hand?
>
> Yes. "pool" doesn't mean "her pool" - it just means "counters from the
> blood bank".
OK, but that interpretation causes other problems. When you guess a
Methuselah's "pool" correctly, you gain "that pool" according to the V:tES
text (so far, so good). The phrase "that pool" is clearly a reference to
the pool referred to earlier, which the Methuselah holds out in her hand.
Nowhere does it say that the Methuselah holding out "pool" loses actual
pool corresponding to their "pool", when you guess correctly. (This is
explicitly stated in the Jyhad text).
The only way to conclude, from the V:tES text, that the Methuselah holding
out "pool" ever loses anything, is to assume that the "pool" they are
holding out is actually taken from their pool.
V:tES text [with errata]:
Each [other] Methuselah holds out between 1 and 4 pool in his or
her hand. Guess the amount of pool in each Methuselah's hand. Each time
you guess correctly, you gain that pool. If you guess incorrectly, that
Methuselah gains that much blood from the blood bank.
Lupus Australis
> > On a related note, is it legal to show other players cards in hand,
> > to prove a statement? (or how many pool you've placed in your hand)
>
> I don't believe that's ever been discussed, but I'd have to say "no".
> Only you can look at cards in your hand and in your uncontrolled region.
>
> I'll verify this with the RT, though.
In the case of Malkavian Prank, I would argue that doing this (actually
showing the blood in your hand) is forbidden by card text.
Card text orders the Methuselah playing the card to "guess" the amount.
Even if the opposing Methuselahs tell you how much pool they have in their
hands, you still are "guessing" in a sense, since you have no guarantee
that they will keep their word.
But if you see directly how much pool is there, then you cannot "guess" in
any meaningful sense.
If another player shows me 3 pool in his hand, then I cannot obey card
text until I give him an opportunity to secretly alter that amount.
LSJ
Good point. More errata:
Each [other] Methuselah holds out between 1 and 4 pool in his or her hand.
Guess the amount of pool in each Methuselah's hand. Each time you guess
correctly, you gain that [much] pool [and that Methuselah loses that much
pool]. If you guess incorrectly, that Methuselah gains that much [pool] from
the blood bank.
Or, for simplicity: "play it the way the Jyhad card reads".
--
L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules:
http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Joshua Duffin
I don't really agree with this point of view.
In the strict sense of 'guessing', you are not 'guessing' if they have
told you how much pool is in their hand and you then 'guess' that amount -
that is, I think 'guessing' (strictly) requires that you have no actual
information to base your decision on.
In the loose sense of 'guessing', which is basically using the word
'guess' for 'say how much you think they have', you can equally well
'guess' having seen the pool as you can having heard how much they say
they're holding.
Note that even if someone shows you the pool in their hand, they could
use sleight of hand tricks to change the amount actually there.
As far as I can see, the only thing in the rules that addresses these
'hidden information' issues is in section 2.3 (Play Area): "You can look
at the cards in your hand and uncontrolled region at any time during
the game." In other words, the approach seems to be one of specifying
who *does* have access to particular information rather than who *can't*
receive the information. (at 1.6.1, Overview of Library Cards (General),
it says that "Your ash heap can be examined by any player at any time." -
again specifying what information is freely available.)
So my feeling is that, since it is nowhere prohibited, any Methuselah
may divulge any information they want to, accurate or otherwise, with or
without proof (in the form of revealing cards or blood counters or anything
else).
Josh
boris, zis is ivan... do you have ze secret plans?
Lupus Australis
> Lupus Australis (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote:
> : In the case of Malkavian Prank, I would argue that doing this (actually
> : showing the blood in your hand) is forbidden by card text.
>
> : Card text orders the Methuselah playing the card to "guess" the amount.
>
> : Even if the opposing Methuselahs tell you how much pool they have in their
> : hands, you still are "guessing" in a sense, since you have no guarantee
> : that they will keep their word.
>
> : But if you see directly how much pool is there, then you cannot "guess" in
> : any meaningful sense.
>
> : If another player shows me 3 pool in his hand, then I cannot obey card
> : text until I give him an opportunity to secretly alter that amount.
>
> I don't really agree with this point of view.
>
> In the strict sense of 'guessing', you are not 'guessing' if they have
> told you how much pool is in their hand and you then 'guess' that amount -
> that is, I think 'guessing' (strictly) requires that you have no actual
> information to base your decision on.
Ok, but the word "guess" is almost never used in what you consider to be
the "strictest sense". In normal usage, a guess can easily be based on
information, as long as that information does not provide certainty.
> In the loose sense of 'guessing', which is basically using the word
> 'guess' for 'say how much you think they have', you can equally well
> 'guess' having seen the pool as you can having heard how much they say
> they're holding.
I would argue that even in the "loose" sense, guessing strongly implies a
lack of certainty.
> Note that even if someone shows you the pool in their hand, they could
> use sleight of hand tricks to change the amount actually there.
Such factors should not be part of the equation. If they can do that,
then they can also use sleight of hand tricks to change the amount after
you guess.
Of course, if they show you the amount they intend to hold out, and are
then given an opportunity to change the amount before actually holding out
their hands, then you are still guessing.
If they show you the amount *after* holding out hands (but before your
guess) then you are not guessing. If they change the amount *after*
holding out hands, then they are cheating.
Joshua Duffin
: Ok, but the word "guess" is almost never used in what you consider to be
: the "strictest sense". In normal usage, a guess can easily be based on
: information, as long as that information does not provide certainty.
Oh good, we're officially into 'discussing semantics' territory. ;-)
: I would argue that even in the "loose" sense, guessing strongly implies a
: lack of certainty.
Sure, but it doesn't *have* to. Consider the idiom, 'Guess who I saw
the other day." Even if you already know who they saw, they've still
asked you to guess. I hardly think you're forced to remain silent if
you know who it was. ;-)
: > Note that even if someone shows you the pool in their hand, they could
: > use sleight of hand tricks to change the amount actually there.
: Such factors should not be part of the equation. If they can do that,
: then they can also use sleight of hand tricks to change the amount after
: you guess.
Yeah, they *could*, just like they could tell you how much they're
holding but be lying.
: Of course, if they show you the amount they intend to hold out, and are
: then given an opportunity to change the amount before actually holding out
: their hands, then you are still guessing.
: If they show you the amount *after* holding out hands (but before your
: guess) then you are not guessing. If they change the amount *after*
: holding out hands, then they are cheating.
Clearly they are cheating if they change the amount after you guess.
If it's within their abilities to change the amount while holding out
their hand (but before you guess), I think they can legitimately do that,
even if they have showed you how much they were previously holding (just as
they can legitimately tell you how much they are currently holding out,
but lie about it).
My only point is that the game should never require players to keep
certain information secret. They can be allowed to keep secrets, but
they shouldn't be forced to. What would happen if you played a Malkavian
Prank and someone picked up pool from the blood bank and held it out in
their open hand for everyone to see the whole time? Would the Prankster
be unable to continue the game because he can't 'guess' how much pool
this person is holding?
That's the kind of silliness that I'm arguing shouldn't be forced on
the game. Just because the word 'guess' is in the phrasing of Malkavian
Prank doesn't mean players should be held to the strictest interpretation of
the word 'guess' while playing the card.
Josh
overly willing to split hairs